Photograph 3 ~. Mark Holand’s photograph of the active server rock with its side panel removed, and a portable fan
positioned inside the enclosure gop as improvised cocling. This is the physica! condition described in the warker’s March 7,
2026 fire cade complaint (Violation 2 —- Missing Server Rack Side Panel: Violation 4 — Overioaded Electrical Circuits} and in
the "unshielded" testing condition described in the Formal Notice (Sectian 6, below).

Evidence: Worker photographs, Workstation 3, OMC1 Training Room — cross-referenced against Arcose Consulting

site materials.

5. The Occupancy Misclassification — “Server Room’ vs. “Training Simulation
Room”

The BC Building Code imposes materially different ventilation, occupancy, and fire-suppression
requirements on an unoccupied server room than on an occupied training classroom. BCRTC's own
instructions to its consultant, and that consultant's own later work product, show the two labels do not
agree — and do not agree in the direction that happens to favour BCRTC.

e@ March 3, 2026: BCRTC instructs Arcose to test “a server room.”

e March 11, 2026: Arcose’s own post-site-visit noise map labels the same space “Level 2 ~ Training
Simulation Room” — directly contradicting the premise BCRTC gave it eight days earlier.

Evidence: Exhibits B & C, “The Name and Address Shell Game” submissian, p. 3.

The roam was, at all relevant times, an occupied classroom used to train Control Operators — a fact
BCRTC’s own consultant confirmed once it actually visited the site. BCRTC’s initial framing to that
consultant nonetheless described an unoccupied server room. Whether by design or by carelessness, this
mismatch means the resulting noise assessment was built on a premise BCRTC's own records show to be
false.

6. The Staged Test Environment

i

000289