plain error. Because the record contains other cognizable errors that in and of themselves require a new trial, see text infra, we are content to allow our comments on the “property interest” ruling to stand as a guide to the district court on retrial. See Rosaly v. Ignacio, 593 F.2d 145, 147-48 (1st Cir.1979) (employing a similar strategy)- This brings us to the two evi-dentiary bevues (both of which were properly preserved). In employment discrimination cases, the factors that motivate a decision are central to the decisionmaker’s liability in his personal capacity. See Acevedo-Garcia v. Vera-Monroig, 204 F.3d 1, 11 (1st Cir.2000) (stating that a political discrimination claim “has no meaning absent the allegation of impermissible motivation”); see also Gómez I, 218 F.Supp.2d at 77 (<HOLDING>) (quoting Kelley v. LaForce, 288 F.3d 1, 7 (1st
holding that the most important factor in the preservation hierarchy is whether the relevant issue was raised in the trial court and the least important factor is whether the appellant alerted the trial court to the specific argument raised on appeal recognizing that there is an important privacy interest in corporate financial documents the court agrees that the information can be protected therefore the court  required that the information be disclosed pursuant to a confidentiality order only to be used in connection with this litigation recognizing that admission is important to the evaluation of witness credibility recognizing that the third factor permanence is the most important recognizing that the information possessed by the defendant is an important variable in that equation