What Alex wrote is a bit interesting given his update (emphasis my own):<p>&gt;At this point, it was reasonable to believe that Wes was operating on behalf of Synack. His account on our portal mentions Synack as his affiliation, <i>he has interacted with us using a synack.com email address</i>, and he has written blog posts that are used by Synack for marketing purposes.<p>According to Alex this is the timeline:<p>1. Researcher not happy with sum<p>2. Researcher already in contact using Synack email address<p>3. Alex calls Synack CEO<p>From the researcher&#x27;s blog:<p>&gt;I never contacted Facebook or Alex using my work email account. It was only after Alex contacted my employer via email that I sent a reply from my work account. Alex indirectly contacted me at work, not the other way around.<p>This means that Alex is lying, is telling exactly the facts needed to come to a specific conclusion and nothing more or the researcher is lying. And he&#x27;s &quot;written blog posts that are used by Synack&quot;? Come now. Reads a lot like someone looking for a third item so they can make it a comma separated list of reasons. His post smells like bullshit.