> Again, they didn't state that he lied. They stated that he wasn't candid. A lot of people here have been reading specifics into a generalized term.

OED:

candour - the quality of being open and honest in expression.

"They didn't state he lied ... without even using lies of omission ... they said he wasn't [word defined as honest and open]"

Candour encapsulates exactly those things. Being open (i.e. not omitting things and disclosing all you know) and honest (being truthful).

On the contrary, "not consistently candid", while you call it a "generalized term", is actually a quite specific term that was expressly chosen, and says, "we have had multiple instances where he has not been open with us, or not been honest with us, or both".

Yes? I agree, and don't see how what you've written either extends or contradicts what I wrote.

To not be candid means to not be open (i.e. keeping things back, 'omission') or to not be honest (i.e. lie).

If he didn't lie, and didn't lie by omission then he was by definition being candid.

Give us an example then, of how you can be "not candid" while being honest and open.

If "and" operates as logical "and," then being "honest and not open," "not honest and open," and "not honest and not open" would all be possibilities, one of which would still be "honest" but potentially lying through omission.

Its possible not to be candid without even using lies of omission (and be on the losing side of a vicious factional battle) and get a nice note thanking you for all that you've done and allowing you to step down and spend more time with your family at the end of the year too. Or to carry on as before but with onerous reporting requirements. The board dumped him with unusual haste and an almost unprecedented attack on his integrity instead. A lot of people are reading the room rather than hyperliterally focusing on the exact words used.

If I take the time to accuse my boss of failing to be candid instead of thanking him in my resignation letter or exit interview, I'm not saying I think he could have communicated better, I'm saying he's a damned liar, and my letter isn't sent for the public to speculate on.

Whether the board were justified in concluding Sam was untrustworthy is another question, but they've been willing to burn quite a lot of reputation on signalling that.

> hyperliterally focusing on the exact words used.

Business communication is never, ever forthright. These people cannot be blunt to the public even if their life depended on it. Reading between the lines is practically a requirement.

They said he lied without using those exact words. Standard procedure and corp-speak.

How much you wanna bet that the board wasn't told about OpenAI's Dev Days presentation until after it happened?