Is this an inversion? To V should S be . .

As always, while reading through I found a sentence whose structure confused me.

What I want to know is whether the first sentence is the inversion form of the second sentence.

1. If the reason was to avoid bad publicity should his error be discovered, then . . .

2. If the reason was his error be discovered to avoid bad publicity, then . . .

If not, how should I interpret the first sentence?

Thanks.

Answer

The sentences are not equivalent in meaning. That is, the first makes sense, the second doesn't.

Probably your confusion lies in the word should. Here it means if. I would expand it like this:

If the reason was to avoid bad publicity [if] his error [were to] be discovered, then . . .