How would C81 have gone if CI handled it?

I started thinking about how CI would have handled C81 without SA last night-- on a whim. I had not been reading the CI reports so resolved to read through at least the online CI reports the next morning.

As I read through the available reports by Ben Best, it occurred to me that there were few situations that were "normal"-- in my view. Normal means the person was fully signed up with CI and was rescued by CI near CI. It turns out that C81 was the single most "normalized" potential situation in a long time-- meaning that C81 lived near enough to CI to be "near" and had been self-motivated to sign up and was fully funded.

Could this element have something to do with having been subject to handover by a relatively inexperienced and unknown "for-profit" cryonics team? The report from SA by CPlatt is that C81 was "under" funded-- and that Ben Best had to negotiate the price down-- however-- consider the fact that the funding was in place and solid too-- compared to other CI situations where these parameters were sketchy-- such as cash payments by relatives. Other recent CI cases involved autopsied people with brains placed in their gut, last minute sign ups by relatives and and a variety of odd situations. THIS case, C81, turns out to have been relatively-- as I say-- "normal".

Given that C81 was a relatively normalized situation-- one would think that Ben Best would jump at the "opportunity" (I don't like to call it that) to have the CI rescue capability put into motion. I searched Ben Bests other reports for indicators of who the team members were and how they worked. There's actually no sign of that. People say Ben Best writes well and provides transparency. I thought so too. But now I'm not so sure. There's little to go on-- other than the purely technical data with respect to the actual perfusion and cooldown. There is little transpareny on the surrounding situation. The reports are all quite stilted in their style-- and no other CI worker ever contributes their own "story" so that we can see a few different angles on the thing.... which brings to mind the following...

I read Cplatt's SA C81 report a little more carefully last night-- and it turns out that before that report was released, it was tied down and confirmed and double checked with everyone. So-- I guess they all have their story straight. This is less satisfactory to me than a situaiton where we would have several writers reporting their view. What the report represents is a consensus as to "how the story goes"--

The thing I don't get-- is that this fairly NORMAL potential situation was HANDED OVER-- with no contract by C81-- This was not SA's "customer". This should have been done by CI-- and so my question would be-- how would CI have handled it-- who is on their team?-- Could C81 have been moved closer to the CI faciility for the plug-pulling (removal of the ventilator)-- did C81 have a "living will"-- shouldn't all cryos have a "living will"?-- Is CI not motivated to keep it's customers-- and the entire funding flow? How could it possibly be that the SA long distance attempt to preserve C81 have been better than the short distance CI situation?

UPDATE-- CI's page on "adanced directives" or "living will"
[+]
Did C81 have an advanced directive?
Wouldn't the advance directive include the ability to say something like "don't screw around with my plans for cryonic suspension? ". You would think a living will would be able to include the outline of the cryonics plan. Maybe we all need to look into that.

UPDATE-- FD asks the important question-- Why didn't C81 consider local cryonics imporant?
[+]