Where did the money go?
A $78.8 million subcontract for 2,000 drones. A stated unit cost of $4,700. DD-250 acceptance for 392 drones. The public record does not need embellishment; it needs to be placed side by side.
The delivery record is narrower than the contract story.
drones under the HII-Cyberlux subcontract, with a total value of $78,857,414.20.
DD-250 accepted drones, valued in the Fairwinds commission schedule at $14,954,400.
The remaining 1,608 units do not appear in the DD-250 acceptance record. Modification 4 instead classifies them by lot and condition.
The spread is the story.
Described as including materials, labour, pack, long-range radio, FPV, controller, specialised drone, munitions container, and ignition control.
The same stated cost plus an additional $2,000.
Based on $14,954,400 in accepted value divided by 392 accepted drones.
That is about an 8.1x price-to-cost spread using the DD-250 accepted value average, before commission claims, financing claims, and post-termination litigation are layered on top.
The main pools now reconcile to the record.
A conservative reference view of the $78.8M face value.
This is not a finding. It is a visual reconciliation aid: stated production cost, a 15% reference profit layer, named commission claims, known non-production uses, and the remaining amount not cleanly reconciled by the available public records.
Every event in the public record, in sequence. The contract. The advance. The stop work order. The creditors.
Every actor named in the record, with relationships drawn from documents.
Searchable across the corpus: court records, agreements, filings, and source PDFs.
The disposition: bank wires, commissions, Mod 4, interpleader math, and unresolved pools.