A review of the arch repair book and samples held by the public archive finds a gap between the total in the public summary and the conditions recorded at the west arch at Reed Hall. The difference does not prove that anyone misstated the file. It shows what the public count leaves out: the repair uses a newer aggregate than the original arch.
The the arch repair book and samples held by the public archive lists 24 replacement stones with a recorded source and date; the previous window lists 21. Thalen Moss checked both against dated copies from both parties compared with the work completed at the site. The source was checked against a second copy held by Aven Moss. No dated correction to either copy was present when the comparison closed.
Masons prioritize a stable joint. Conservators want later readers to distinguish repair from original work. 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 repair can preserve safety while making new material visible in the public record.
The circle publishes options with the seasonal limits stated beside them. The Year third, canopy height window 1 file remains open for its scheduled decision. The archive will attach the repair date and source sample to the arch record.
