The clinic administrator does not agree with the hospital auditor’s conclusion. She is countering this conclusion by broadly interpreting what it means to minimize patient’s suffering.

The clinic administrator does not make a value statement about what ought to be done. Her argument is presented in a matter-of-fact way.

The clinic administrator does not state that being told what to do is the equivalent of being told how to do it. Neither the clinic administrator or the hospital auditor explicitly mention how to minimize patient’s suffering.

The clinic administrator does not agree that a violation has occurred. She thinks a violation has not occurred due to her interpretation of what it means to minimize patient’s suffering.

The key phrase being reinterpreted is what it means to minimize patient’s suffering. The hospital auditor assumes that new diagnostic technologies cannot minimize this suffering.