ARLENE Foster's assertion 18 months ago that she didn't see "every jot and tittle" of her department's operations now looks like a major understatement.
Her third day giving evidence to the RHI inquiry has only served to reinforce the notion that she was overseeing a department that was ill-equipped, under-resourced and headed by a minister whose adherence to procedure, in hindsight, looks questionable.
A lack of contemporaneous records – the reason for which is the source of much debate – doesn't help when it comes to establishing whose account of the initial phases of the flawed scheme is most accurate.
Fiona Hepper, the head of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment's energy division at the time RHI was being developed, has already provided the inquiry with quite detailed evidence.
Her recollection of meetings with the minister and her special adviser to discuss the scheme contrasts starkly with what Mrs Foster and Andrew Crawford can remember.
Mrs Foster puts her poor recall of key events in 2012 down to a busy schedule that included preparations for a visit by Queen Elizabeth – though under which part of her brief the British monarch's visit fell under is unclear.
Throughout yesterday's evidence, the pattern which has emerged over the past week of warning signs missed and key documents overlooked continued.
Mrs Foster, despite coming from a farming background and representing a rural constituency, was never aware of talk about the lucrative 'cash for ash' scheme and nor did she hear any alarm bells ringing that would have alerted her to the need to put cost controls in place.
When challenged about effectively signing a "blank cheque" by the inquiry panel's understated inquisitor Keith MacClean, the DUP leader again passed the buck on to her officials, insisting she'd done the right thing based on the information provided to her.
Elsewhere, civil servants were giving her "mixed messages" about how the scheme was operating.
Given the prolonged intensity of the scrutiny, the former first minister must surely have been grateful to see the inquiry's focus shift, albeit briefly, from her to the media's coverage.
Referring to an article in The Irish News focussing on the fall-out from David Sterling's explosive evidence last month, inquiry panel chairman Sir Patrick Coghlin repeated that what was said during the course of proceedings should not be taken in isolation.
Perhaps if there were fewer sensational revelations in the ostensibly ponderous and very deliberate proceedings, the media may find it easier to highlight some of the mundane.
