The public account of the apprentice vote relies on the workshop roster and the rules for ward representation. A review of that source and the field notes finds a specific limit: the count can be repeated, but it does not include a workbench token each apprentice receives before the evening meeting.
Sella Mor checked the workshop roster and the rules for ward representation against the field notes. The method is to listen for the point where an abstract rule becomes a household obligation; it confirms the entries, but not every interpretation attached to them. The comparison covers 32 apprentices listed by trade; 36 appear in the prior file. No signed correction to either entry was present when this review closed.
Tova Brann, delegate for the shared workshops, said the source register was complete for its stated purpose. The office has not provided a separate measure for whether apprentices may elect a voting delegate while still bound to a master’s shop, so the public record cannot yet show which account is more representative.
Guild stewards argue that apprentices lack independent contracts; the apprentices say they already carry independent duties and risk. 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 affected crew has tried the revised procedure under ordinary working conditions. The entry belongs to the winter count file at the Lower Ward meeting hall. The table has asked the guilds to produce their current contract forms. The next file should preserve the original entries and explain any change in method.
