A review of the two communities’ seed manifests and return notes finds a gap between the total in the public summary and the conditions recorded at the shared table at East Canopy Gate. The difference does not prove that anyone misstated the file. It shows what the public count leaves out: one lot is returned as a local-name variety without a cross-index.
The the two communities’ seed manifests and return notes lists 96 lots with a return date and a germination note; the previous window lists 99. Aeren Thorn checked both against signed council records checked against the amendments residents submitted. The source was checked against a second copy held by Talen Moss. No dated correction to either copy was present when the comparison closed.
Each community has a valid local record. The joint table needs a cross-index before it can compare returns. 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 exchange partners keep local names while tracking a shared lot.
Asecond transect checks the reading against the living site. The Year second, budbreak window 3 file remains open for its scheduled decision. Both record keepers will add a cross-index without replacing the original names.
