> I did not publicly accuse the writer of anything

C'mon, what scenario do you have in mind where New York magazine "materially disavows the article" [0] but the writer, Cowles, is not guilty of fabulism (presenting a creative writing exercise as non-fiction would count as that level of deception)?

> You have made, in this thread, several claims that I am wildly miscalibrated with respect to banking procedure.

I am very confident that you know far more about banking policy and conventions than I do. So when you assert that the facts of NYMag do not seem reconcilable with the reality of American banking, I'm happy to take your word for it. Now that you've essentially retracted that doubt, a doubt so strong that you were willing to spend thousands of dollars to investigate it over a year, I'm very confused about your priors. Was Cowles being richer than you had thought possible your only flawed assumption? Like if she had only written "btw I'm from a rich family and I live in an owner-occupied home in Brooklyn", that alone would have been enough to resolve the many issues you raise about the unlikeliness of a $50k cash withdrawal? What's the threshold of wealth in which that $50k transfer is given cursory approval? Is the $50k easy because she's a one-percenter? Would it be easy if she is/were merely in the top 5% or 10% of household wealth

One of my main frustrations about your writeup is that it sets up these questions and then fails to answer them, as if the fact of Cowles' unspecified wealth is alone the self-evident answer? Speaking as a layperson, I assume that being a 30-something living in New York who had $80,000 in savings and checkings alone -- which she explicitly states in her article -- would be enough to qualify for a no-hold-up same day $50k withdrawal from a New York bank. Is that not the case?

> I had some doubts that the story, as presented, was true. I did what I hear journalists do, and went out and reported the story

And genuine kudos to you, the world would be a better place if "trust, but verify" were our default modes of operation. I guess what bugs me is that your article opens with a detailed examination of how NYMag fumbled that 2014 profile of a teenage millionaire, but you end your own investigation after being apparently satisfied with a fact-check that seems almost as facile as the one purportedly done for their retracted 2014 profile.

Presume a universe in which Cowles did indeed publish a fabrication; it would require an extreme motivation for her to risk torching her career and in such a highly public and scrutinized fashion. Such a motivated person could easily put in the work to make sure that the bank they allude to vaguely fits the description they choose to publish (tbh, we should ask ourselves why would an ostensible fabricator would even choose to publish that "upstairs" detail, when they can easily formulate a description that vaguely applies to a dozen New York banks?). The fact that it's in a police report is, as you say, not a big deal given the light consequences of a false police report (and not a big deal, especially compared to the consequences of career suicide).

> This would be a very different piece if that police report, or any other documentation at a trusted institution, named e.g. 266 Broadway instead.

Why exactly would it be different? What if she had named 266 Broadway to the police, and omitted literally just a single word from her published article ("upstairs"); how would that change the thrust of your dogged investigation, which seems so premised on your knowledge and assumptions of the banking system? So many words and so much effort (again, kudos to putting in the infuriating work needed to get the NYPD to respond) are devoted to this one detail that one can't help but think it was a significant factor in quelling your doubt. Ironically, it reminds me of the strategy that Cowles' alleged scammers used: provide her with seemingly hard-to-know real world information (her SSN, her physical address, that her "2-year-old son was playing in [her] living room") to lull her into believing something much more significant (that the scammer is a CIA agent about to arrest her husband).

You aren't scamming us of course (hey it's not your fault for us choosing to read your article). But asserting that this second-story bank detail is worth attention, implying that a fabulising Cowles wouldn't have put that much thought into her lie, feels like a disservice to the rigorous investigation that your article promises. And without an equally significant number of words dedicated to how you may or may not have had miscalibrated assumptions wrt banking procedure, this is why your article feels incredibly frustrating.

[0] https://manifold.markets/patio11/will-new-york-magazine-walk...