Lecter's Game: Was Clarice a Pawn From the Start?

Okay, so I just rewatched "The Silence of the Lambs" (again, I know, I'm obsessed, sue me). And something really struck me this time around that I hadn't quite pieced together before. We always talk about how Lecter manipulates Clarice, peels back her layers, all that jazz. But what if Crawford knew exactly what he was doing when he sent her in there? Think about it. Crawford is sharp, obviously. He's seen Lecter up close, he knows the monster he's dealing with. And he picks Clarice, a trainee, to be his messenger? It's supposedly because she's a good student and, yeah, maybe she's got that 'vulnerable' thing that Lecter supposedly goes for. But what if Crawford knew Lecter would NEED to get into Clarice's head in order to offer any real help in the Buffalo Bill case? He needed a quid pro quo, and what's more valuable to Lecter than psychological insight? So maybe Crawford was sacrificing Clarice in a way, throwing her to the wolves (or, uh, the lamb?) hoping she'd come out the other side with something useful. The scene where Crawford is talking to the other agents after Clarice has left Lecter's cell for the first time—he seems almost... predatory. He's watching her reaction, gauging what Lecter's done. He doesn't seem particularly concerned about her well-being, just the information. And then later on, when Lecter gives Clarice the "quid pro quo" clue about Buffalo Bill being transsexual - I almost think Crawford KNEW Lecter would lead them to that kind of stuff. I don't know, maybe I'm reading too much into it. But the whole thing felt a little less 'heroic mentor' and a little more 'calculated strategist' this time around. Like, Crawford wasn't just using Clarice; he was banking on Lecter using her too. Thoughts?