Appendices B and C: Sources
From the Dossier
Appendix B: Source directory
26 validated working entries (Sections A–D), plus 10 additional overflow entries (Appendix C) held in reserve: real, verified articles cut only by the two-per-firm rule, not by quality.
Every article was retrieved via live web search and cross-verified against at least one additional outlet where underlying facts (settlement amounts, dates, headcount figures) permitted corroboration. Each entry has its own page with its source, publication date, link, independence rating, summary and credibility assessment. The quick-reference table links to each page.
* With the IBM-sponsorship caveat noted in Appendix A.
Appendix C: Additional sources reviewed
Every article below was verified using the same methodology as the 26 entries in Appendix B and would have qualified on merit. The only reason each did not make the main list is that its firm had already reached the two-entry cap.
McKinsey overflow
When McKinsey Comes to Town (book coverage)
The Washington Post, 2022-09-29
Coverage of the book When McKinsey Comes to Town, cataloguing a broader history of the firm’s scandals and controversies beyond the opioid settlement, including its work advising authoritarian governments and its role in the 2008 financial crisis.
Why excluded: McKinsey’s two-entry cap was filled by the NPR opioid-settlement piece and the Economist trajectory piece.
Waste of the Day: NYC Spent $1.6 Million To Study Trash Cans
RealClearInvestigations (OpenTheBooks.com), 2024-10-24
Frames a $1.6–4 million McKinsey contract to study New York City’s garbage-bin logistics as a case of consultants being paid to produce what critics call obvious conclusions.
Why excluded: Firm cap.
New York’s $1.6 million trash can revolution
Sherwood News, 2024-07-11
Covers the identical McKinsey/NYC trash-bin contract but reaches an opposite conclusion: after walking through what the study actually involved (analyzing sanitation systems across a dozen-plus cities to model truck routing, bin durability, and rat mitigation at city scale), the piece concludes $1.6 million is a reasonable price for that scope of work.
Link: https://sherwood.news/business/new-yorks-usd1-6-million-trash-can-revolution/
Why excluded: Firm cap.
Deloitte overflow
Deloitte AI debacle seen as wake-up call for corporate finance
Alexei Alexis, CFO Dive, 2025-10-14
Treats the Australia hallucination story less as a Deloitte scandal and more as an industry-wide warning to finance professionals about using generative AI without verification safeguards, quoting an accounting professor’s advice to review AI output “as if it were prepared by an intern or new hire.”
Link: https://www.cfodive.com/news/deloitte-ai-debacle-seen-wake-up-call-corporate-finance/802674/
Why excluded: Firm cap.
Deloitte refunds over $60K for report with AI errors, Australian government says
CFO Dive, 2025-10-21
A follow-up reporting the Australian government’s confirmed refund figure, just over $60,000, which is notably smaller than the roughly $290,000 partial-refund figure that circulated in the initial coverage.
Why excluded: Firm cap, and duplicate story rather than a distinct one.
PwC overflow
Evergrande Auditor PwC China Flops in First US Inspection
Bloomberg Tax, 2024-10-03
Extends the PwC/Evergrande story into US regulatory territory: PCAOB inspectors found deficiencies in all seven PwC China audits they reviewed, the firm’s first inspection after a 2022 US-China data-access deal made its work papers available to American regulators.
Why excluded: Firm cap.
EY overflow
It’s Gonna Be a Talent Bloodbath at EY
Going Concern, 2023-04-21
Trade-press coverage of rival firms, PwC by name, moving to poach EY partners in the immediate aftermath of the failed Project Everest split, with an EY spokesperson pushing back on the “bloodbath” framing.
Link: https://www.goingconcern.com/ey-project-everest-failure-poaching/
Why excluded: Firm cap.
BCG overflow
U.S. consulting firm quits Gaza humanitarian aid effort, amid criticism
The Washington Post, 2025-06-03
The original breaking story: BCG’s spokesperson confirmed the firm terminated its GHF contract and placed a senior partner on leave pending an internal review, after reports emerged of Israeli forces firing on crowds near aid sites.
Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/06/03/gaza-humanitarian-fund-bcg/
Why excluded: Firm cap.
Correcting the record on BCG teams’ involvement in work in Gaza
Boston Consulting Group (official company statement), July 2025
BCG’s corporate statement: the firm says two US partners did not disclose the full nature of pro bono work they had undertaken, describes their actions as “a serious failure of judgment,” says both have left the firm, and stresses BCG was never paid for the work.
Link: https://www.bcg.com/news/6july2025-clarifying-bcg-involvement-with-aid-in-gaza
Why excluded: Firm cap and firm-authored account.
Bain overflow
Treasury slaps Bain with a ten-year ban from state contracts over ‘corrupt and fraudulent practices’
Daily Maverick, 2022-09-30
More granular South African reporting than the BBC piece: covers whistleblower Athol Williams’s role feeding evidence to the UK Parliament, anti-apartheid campaigner Peter Hain’s public pressure campaign, and Bain’s continued denial of wrongdoing even after apologizing and refunding roughly R217 million (~$12.8 million) in SARS contract fees with interest.
Why excluded: Firm cap.
Note on exclusions: Generic “70% of projects fail” statistics were excluded per the credibility assessment in Appendix A. One speculative/future-dated article was excluded entirely. Additional McKinsey material (the book When McKinsey Comes to Town and the NYC trash-bin contract story) was genuinely strong but would have exceeded the two-entry cap.
This dossier was compiled on 2026-08-24, using the Ismail’s Credibility Checker protocol for all claims carrying evidentiary weight. All 26 primary entries were retrieved via live web search and cross-verified against at least one additional outlet where underlying facts permitted corroboration.
| The Dossier | |
|---|---|
| Pages | OverviewEvidence: Sections A to DThematic analysisRoot-cause analysisAppendix A: Methodology and source standardsAppendices B and C: Sources |