User:MaryGaulke/sandbox/Porter Novelli requests

Hi! It's that time again. As noted above, I'm a COI editor working for Porter Novelli. Two recent edits to this article – a new section at the top and an addition to the end of "Notable campaigns" – are quite redundant of each other, and I think it would make sense to merge them into a shared subsection of either "History" or "Notable campaigns". A full, top-level section for one event in a 48-year history is in my opinion WP:UNDUE (especially as the first section in the article). A few other notes: I am happy to propose new specific wording if it's helpful, but I also respect that it's probably best if I involve myself in how this is worded as little as possible. I'm just looking to keep this article accurate and compliant with the MOS.
 * The section title should be in sentence case per MOS:SECTIONCAPS, which is probably WP:COIU but I didn't want to risk fixing it myself.
 * The first mention of Verma's first name is misspelled.
 * Having a WP:EL in the article body is a MOS violation.
 * Re: "The report details how Porter Novelli shuffled money to private Republican political operators including Nahigian Strategies, Pam Stevens, and nearly two dozen other Republican contractors." In fact, the report clearly and repeatedly states that the CMS Administrator, not PN, directed the use of consultants with Republican ties.
 * Re: Nahigian Strategies specifically, page 10 of the report states, "Nahigian Strategies, which had served as a contractor for CMS in prior administrations, began providing consulting services to CMS during Administrator Verma’s tenure under CMS’s Deloitte agreement and continued consulting for CMS under both the 2017 and 2018 Porter Novelli agreements." So again, Porter Novelli did not initiate work with Nahigian.
 * Same thing with Pam Stevens. From page 13 of the report: "Further, emails obtained by the Committees show that top officials in the Administrator’s office specifically sought out Stevens’s services and initiated her engagement with Porter Novelli."
 * And I'm not sure where "nearly two dozen other Republican contractors" came from. Closest correlation comes from page 13 of the report: "Porter Novelli engaged at least five other consultants to support its work under the various task orders with CMS."
 * Per the source cited, it is categorically inaccurate to state that Porter Novelli "violated the law". The full report only states that CMS, not PN, "potentially" violated the law. Furthermore, CMS, not PN, controlled the funding, so it is inaccurate to claim that PN was "funneling tax payer funds." The NYT source cited later in the article mentions Porter Novelli only twice, and also does not corroborate these claims.
 * The second mention of Verma's name is a MOS:REPEATLINK.