This 12–13 April 2015 email chain shows Alan White, Heidi Blake, Craig Silverman, Luke Lewis and Tom Phillips reviewing BuzzFeed’s planned no-surprises or front-up letter to Mike Leidig shortly before publication of the CEN article. The document is significant because Blake, writing as BuzzFeed UK investigations editor, says the letter needed “much more detail” about why BuzzFeed believed each article or quotation was fake, so that Leidig had a chance to “point out any holes in our workings”. That wording is important because it records Blake’s recognition that the right-to-reply process could expose weaknesses in BuzzFeed’s reasoning before publication. In the wider evidence chain, the exchange suggests that the front-up process was not only about giving Leidig a fair chance to respond, but also about using his response to test and potentially repair unresolved gaps in BuzzFeed’s investigation. Blake also advises BuzzFeed to contact “every other outlet” named in the story as having bought CEN content, widening the article beyond an earlier MailOnline-centred focus into a broader publisher-contact and right-to-reply exercise. The chain also shows unresolved proof issues: Silverman says BuzzFeed lacked conclusive proof that CEN sold both words and pictures on the Argentinian teacher story, White asks whether there is “anything more” they can do to verify the source of copy where verification was missing, and Phillips says he is still screenshotting material line by line. It should be read alongside the later Press Gazette spoiler and publication-day documents, because this exchange makes BuzzFeed look close to sending the front-up letter on 13 April, yet the article was not published until 24 April, after Press Gazette’s intervention forced the issue. The timing is important because it suggests BuzzFeed was still waiting for responses, clarification or admissions that might help complete the article, while Leidig’s decision not to assist with that process left BuzzFeed to publish on the evidence it already had.