It is noted that there are individuals on the security list who possess equal or greater seniority compared to Peter. This point underscores the collective expertise present within the group, suggesting that the absence or presence of any single individual does not significantly alter the group's capability. Furthermore, Riard addresses the evolution of the project, pointing out that even components of the system that change infrequently are subject to updates. This implies that continuous active involvement is crucial for maintaining an up-to-date understanding of the system's workings.

Riard also clarifies that not being on the security list does not prevent someone from contributing their expertise when necessary. This reflects a flexible approach to collaboration, where external consultations can supplement the core group's knowledge as needed. The specific mention of Peter’s lack of active involvement in resolving two cited examples further questions the impact of his presence on the security list. Riard expresses skepticism regarding the tangible benefits of Peter's participation over the past two years, indicating that his removal might not be as detrimental as presumed.

The email reveals that Riard, along with others who have been on the security list for an extended period, was unaware of Peter's inclusion until shortly before his removal. This revelation suggests a lack of direct communication or visible contribution from Peter during his time on the list. Overall, the message conveys a perspective that the effectiveness and integrity of the security list are maintained through current and actively contributing members, rather than relying on the historical involvement of individuals who may no longer be engaged with the project's day-to-day operations.