A review of batch cards, rinse readings and the shared pigment shelf list finds a gap between the total in the public summary and the conditions recorded at the Blueleaf dye room. The difference does not prove that anyone misstated the file. It shows what the public count leaves out: a shared pigment lot changes shade after a second rinse.
The batch cards, rinse readings and the shared pigment shelf list lists 29 batches with a source and rinse note; the previous window lists 24. Sylva Reed checked both against field transects paired with the season and location of each reading. The source was checked against a second copy held by Lira Ash. No dated correction to either copy was present when the comparison closed.
Makers want the local color name preserved. Buyers need a comparable sample before placing a second order. The office has not supplied a separate measure that would settle the disagreement, so the two explanations remain competing accounts.
This report supports a narrower finding: the count is repeatable, but it is not enough to decide how a cooperative can preserve a maker’s color record across different looms.
Asecond transect checks the reading against the living site. The Year fifth, seedfall window 2 file remains open for its scheduled decision. The shelf list will keep the local name beside a dated comparison swatch.
