A review of the submitted text, translator notes and the public stone index finds a gap between the total in the public summary and the conditions recorded at the remembrance stones at East Grove. The difference does not prove that anyone misstated the file. It shows what the public count leaves out: two translation drafts differ in how they name a shared crossing.
The the submitted text, translator notes and the public stone index lists 22 entries with a submitted translation and a public correction path; the previous window lists 17. 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 Thalen Moss. No dated correction to either copy was present when the comparison closed.
Editors want one settled text. The submitting families ask that the earlier wording remain available as a source. 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 public memorial keeps a precise translation without hiding the earlier draft.
Neighbors and makers submit observations before the council table closes. The Year fifth, budbreak window 2 file remains open for its scheduled decision. The index will link the approved text to the dated translation drafts.
