A review of the channel level book and the downstream moisture readings finds a gap between the total in the public summary and the conditions recorded at the east grove feeder channel. The difference does not prove that anyone misstated the file. It shows what the public count leaves out: the east branch receives meltwater two days later than the upper branch.
The the channel level book and the downstream moisture readings lists 25 readings taken at the same root markers; the previous window lists 26. Lyra Ash checked both against visits to the workshop or room alongside interviews with its users. The source was checked against a second copy held by Neris Venn. No dated correction to either copy was present when the comparison closed.
The upper steward favors a shared calendar date. The east circle wants the cut tied to its own readings. 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 the seasonal cut is timed when two branches reach their wet period at different times.
The council records a decision for this site and review window. The board recorded the outcome that it adopted a revised schedule for the next measured window.
