The executive director sat across from the board chair in the small conference room adjacent to the agency's administrative offices, a thick folder resting on the table between them. The folder contained what documentation existed from the renovation project completed four years earlier: the construction contract, some photographs taken during the work, a handful of inspection reports, and correspondence with the general contractor that grew increasingly sparse as the project neared completion. What the folder did not contain was equally significant. There was no systematic record of decisions made during construction, no documentation of the verbal assurances given when certain foundation issues arose mid-project, and most critically from the perspective of this particular meeting, no clear articulation of what the government funder expected in return for its substantial capital contribution. The water infiltration problem that had forced the temporary relocation of two vulnerable-population programs had also triggered questions from the funder's regional office, questions the executive director found difficult to answer because the agency had never clearly understood what answering to the funder actually required. The board chair listened as the executive director explained that pursuing the general contractor would not be a simple matter of filing a claim and waiting for resolution. The funder had contributed nearly forty percent of the renovation budget. That contribution, the executive director had recently learned, came with strings that extended well beyond the completion certificate.