“Are you okay?”
The question landed unexpectedly.
“Yes.”
“That answer came too fast.”
She put down the plates.
“I’m embarrassed.”
“Why?”
“Because I let him make it a performance.”
The manager frowned.
“He made it a performance.”
“I answered.”
“Good.”
“What if tomorrow they think I can’t be neutral?”
“Then another interpreter takes the job.”
The waitress looked down.
“That contract is six weeks.”
“I know.”
“It pays more than three months here.”
“I know.”
The manager leaned closer.
“Listen to me.”
“You did not create the conflict.”
“You were standing there doing your job.”
“A man decided your face made you suitable entertainment.”
“You answered him.”
“If the consequence is professional review, you deal with that.”
“But don’t rewrite the event until somehow you become responsible for his decision.”
The waitress looked at her.
“That was suspiciously wise.”
“I’m forty-six.”
“Wisdom is what happens when mistakes stop being surprising.”
They laughed.
The manager picked up a plate.
“And did you win?”
“The bet?”
“Yes.”
“Technically.”
“Are you getting the money?”
“I have no idea.”
The manager looked offended.
“One hundred thousand?”
“Money isn’t the point.”
“It can have several points.”
The waitress laughed again.
That helped.
Then the general counsel called.
Professional review.
Immediate.
The waitress stepped into the manager’s office.
The lawyer appeared by video.
“We need to discuss tomorrow.”
“Of course.”
“You disclosed your restaurant employment.”
“Yes.”
“You did not know the millionaire would make the wager.”
“No.”
“You did respond in Mandarin.”
“Yes.”
The lawyer paused.
“Do you believe you can interpret neutrally tomorrow?”
The waitress did not rush.
“That depends on what you mean by neutral.”
The lawyer’s eyes narrowed with interest.
“Explain.”
“I can render his words accurately.”
“I can preserve tone where professionally appropriate.”
“I can identify ambiguities.”
“I can avoid editorializing.”
“I cannot promise I will feel nothing about him.”
“No ethical standard requires you to feel nothing.”
“Good.”
The lawyer nodded.
“Would you prefer reassignment?”
The waitress considered the money.
Then rejected that thought.
She considered pride.
Rejected that too.
She thought about the documents.
The mismatched phrases.
“No.”
“I think continuity matters.”
“I already reviewed the terminology.”
The lawyer agreed.
“One condition.”
“What?”
“Tomorrow’s interpretation will be recorded.”
“That protects everyone.”
“Agreed.”
“Second condition.”
“You said one.”
“I’m counsel.”
“I lie professionally in small numbers.”
The waitress almost smiled.
The lawyer continued.
“If you see discrepancies between source materials, you flag them as translation issues.”
“You do not investigate.”
“Understood.”
“Good.”