A decision on the border mill accord should be judged by what happens at the shared flour table at the north border mill. The docket is at step 6 of the current review. Its latest entry reads: The responsible office has offered a limited remedy with an end date for review. A rule that looks complete in the chamber can still leave the people who use it carrying an unmeasured cost.
49 mill turns recorded under the shared water allotment were entered this cycle, compared with 47 in the prior file. That comparison matters because the public summary counts entries. The open question is how two settlements can share a mill without turning each dry week into a dispute over priority.
The accord assigns turns by season; both delegations say the other has carried forward last season’s exception as a rule. The current record does not settle that disagreement. The objection deserves a direct answer, but it is not a reason to make the rule permanent before the affected residents can check the method.
Varda Kin checked the mill’s joint scale slips and the accord’s water-use clause against the field notes. The method is to trace the route from the first signal to the final gate receipt; it confirms the entries, but not every interpretation attached to them. The practical evidence is a marked stone channel that feeds the mill only during the agreed hours; any new measure should record that condition beside the total.
The chamber should approve a limited trial with a published end date, a way to record exceptions and a named reviewer. The joint table will publish the turn schedule with every exception dated. That is the narrowest decision that can be defended from the evidence now available.
