ABSTRACT
Having presented the way in which Matt and his representatives actively construct the events under investigation, a question remains as to whether Matt's grammar of non-agency receives validation in these adjudication processes. That is, is Matt's linguistic construction of the events intelligible to the adjudicators? Is it afforded legitimacy and authority? In Capps' and Ochs' terms, does it become the `of®cial story'? I want to argue that aspects of both decisions were consistent with and thus lent authority to Matt's construction of the events.
