A review of spring flow marks and the sample jars held by two circles finds a gap between the total in the public summary and the conditions recorded at the Lethariel source springs. The difference does not prove that anyone misstated the file. It shows what the public count leaves out: the same spring feeds a public bath and a teaching plot.
The spring flow marks and the sample jars held by two circles lists 43 samples with a chain of custody from spring to room; the previous window lists 42. 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 Oren Leth. No dated correction to either copy was present when the comparison closed.
Bath stewards test for safe use. Gardeners also track mineral changes that affect the teaching plot. 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 to publish water quality when the sample serves different uses.
An independent reader compares the copy with the source record. The Year third, rest season window 3 file remains open for its scheduled decision. The next report will separate the common safety measure from each use-specific reading.
