Plausible Deniability
Plausible Deniability and the Erosion of Independent Flooring Inspections
We appreciate this opportunity to Comment on “Plausible Deniability” with regard to our beloved flooring trade.
This term is a very good description of well disguised misdirection to consumers.
Plausible deniability, is the ability to deny knowledge or responsibility for actions, often illegal or unethical, because there is an intentional hiding of the direct evidence proving involvement, making the denial credible or "plausible."
This tactic is commonly used by high-ranking officials or organizations to shield themselves or key people in the chain of command from accountability for actions taken by the body in question issuing vague instructions or withholding pertinent information from key people in the chain of responsibility.
How many retailers / contractors, and ultimately, consumers must be damaged by this policy? How much harm without conscience must be done before the people who can stop this, the retailers and consumers, demand honest presentations?
For historical perspective and revealing information, “Plausible Deniability” is a term originally coined by the CIA in the 1960s. That explains a lot.
This article is about a few unscrupulous entities. Not everyone in the flooring trade, from manufacturing to distributing ,to retail sales uses this approach.
However, enough do so it has become a concern that really needs to be addressed.
During a recent Zoom discussion among flooring inspectors, an article was referenced suggesting that sales skills are more important than technical knowledge in the flooring industry.
That position is not only simply incorrect—it establishes the foundation for Plausible Deniability.
Let us be direct and upfront, without sufficient and accurate technical knowledge of the product being sold, any salesperson IN ANY PROFESSION Is quite handicapped in the sales presentation.
Without the benefit of good product knowledge, the salesperson has nothing of substance to incorporate into the sales presentation.
Hence, the presentation is just a lot of puffery and nefariously misleading.
Plausible deniability is nothing more than the ability for an unscrupulous person or company to dishonestly deny or misdirect knowledge or responsibility when failures occur.
This is not because the facts are unclear, but because ambiguity has been intentionally built into the process. In today’s flooring industry this tactic has become an increasingly common in an attempt to avoid accountability for a failed product.
Technical knowledge should never optional. It is the cornerstone of responsible flooring sales. Proper product specification, successful installation, and accurate failure analysis is the key to any successful sales effort.
When technical understanding is minimized, responsibility becomes easy to deflect.
In far too many instances, the deflection of responsibility is not accidental.
How Plausible Deniability Is Created?
Plausible deniability is achieved by structuring systems within companies so that key participants—salespeople, manufacturers, distributors, and advisors can later claim ignorance when problems arise.
This situation can be accomplished through vague specifications, incomplete disclosures, loosely worded installation guidance, and selective communication.
When a failure occurs, the blame for the “failure” is most often directed to installers, site conditions, or ultimately the consumer.
Over time, this approach has become normalized! You could even say, “INSTITUTIONALIZED”
The Role of “Mill Inspectors”
One of the most effective tools supporting plausible deniability is the widespread use of so-called third-party inspectors, often referred to as Dalton Mill Inspectors.
These individuals are presented as independent professionals. Yet, many of these inspectors are trained, influenced, or indirectly controlled by the manufacturers whose products they are evaluating. In some cases, their education comes primarily from manufacturer technical departments, with little oversight from seasoned professionals who understand product design, manufacturing limitations, and installation realities.
The appearance of independence exists, but the independence itself is suspect.
When Conclusions Are Not Allowed
A particularly troubling development is the requirement by several major manufacturers that inspectors are not permitted to issue conclusions.
Instead, the manufacturer explicitly retains the right to determine the final outcome of the claim, sometimes denying justified claims from defective Flooring. This single condition eliminates independence entirely. Let’s not forget, the practice of the mills completing reports is illegal because it misrepresents the inspector’s actual findings and opinions.
There have been reports of the claims department mis-representing the inspection report, using the inspector’s name to claim false results. This is done with intent, spuriously, without regard to the harm it may cause the inspectors, retailers, installers and consumers.
Do we even need to mention the moral and ethical positions involved in this misleading and dishonest practice. An inspection process where conclusions are prohibited is not an inspection. It is a risk-management mechanism designed to preserve plausible deniability and shield responsibility.
Upfront without any attempt to be “Industry Politically Correct”, this is not an inspection by an expert, it is a SURVEY anyone can do. Is this a deliberate attempt to discredit flooring inspectors?
When inspectors accept this, they are degrading their worth and accepting the manufacturer is declaring them as “NON-EXPERTS”.
Why This Matters
An industry once grounded in experience, education, and professional judgment is increasingly relying on ambiguity as a defense strategy. Misinformation and misrepresentation replace factual evidence. Responsibility is redirected or completely abandoned rather than examined.
The honest inspector’s credibility, Independence, veracity, and accuracy is compromised by design, that is set forth by the unscrupulous people in the management chain of command.If a salesperson, manufacturer, or advisor truly understands their product, its limitations, and the requirements for proper installation, any possibility of “plausible deniability” disappears from any mechanism that allows a justifiable claims person to reach an accurate and honest decision regarding the potentially defective flooring issue they are evaluating. This reality explains why technical knowledge is so often de-emphasized.
Protecting the Process. The solution is straight forward,
Ask direct questions.
Who trained the inspector?
Who controls the conclusion?
Is the process truly independent?
If the answers are unclear—or controlled by the manufacturer—the outcome is already predetermined. The probability of the matter is The consumer is going to suffer a bad experience, and without the use of a lubricant.
True independence requires technical competence, real-world experience, and the freedom to reach an honest conclusion. Anything less is plausible deniability presented as due process.
Ralph Godfrey John Paul Viveiros