The public account of the apprentice bench relies on the bench sign-in board and the apprentices’ tool issue slips. A review of that source and the field notes finds a specific limit: the count can be repeated, but it does not include a worn wooden gauge used to teach the difference between a clean edge and a sharp one.
Maela Dorn checked the bench sign-in board and the apprentices’ tool issue slips against the field notes. The method is to follow the task through a complete shift, including the cleanup after the bell; it confirms the entries, but not every interpretation attached to them. The comparison covers 50 apprentices who completed a supervised tool check; 49 appear in the prior file. No signed correction to either entry was present when this review closed.
Kelva Orr, master smith responsible for the shared bench, said the source register was complete for its stated purpose. The office has not provided a separate measure for whether the city’s training mark should certify completed hours or demonstrated skill, so the public record cannot yet show which account is more representative.
Masters favor observed work; apprentices say a single test can hide what they have learned across a full season. The current record does not settle that disagreement. This report does not establish that either side misstated the evidence. It establishes that the published total is narrower than the conclusion being drawn from it.
The responsible office has offered a limited remedy with an end date for review. The entry belongs to the first register file at the shared apprentice bench below the north furnace. The guild will trial a portfolio of completed pieces beside the bench examination. The next file should preserve the original entries and explain any change in method.
