The public account of the envoy ledger relies on the joint minutes and the delivery receipts for the last three exchanges. A review of that source and the field notes finds a specific limit: the count can be repeated, but it does not include two copies of the same agreement with different dates in the margin.
Varda Kin checked the joint minutes and the delivery receipts for the last three exchanges 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 comparison covers 56 promises matched to a confirmed delivery; 59 appear in the prior file. No signed correction to either entry was present when this review closed.
Enna Rusk, interpreter for the visiting Stonewater delegation, said the source register was complete for its stated purpose. The office has not provided a separate measure for whether an exchange can be renewed before both settlements agree on what the previous one delivered, so the public record cannot yet show which account is more representative.
Kharad Venn’s copy records a timber shipment; Stonewater’s copy records a promise to send one after the thaw. 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 docket has returned for review with the exceptions and unresolved objections attached. The entry belongs to the interim review file at the guest table at the East Ridge gatehouse. The interpreters will prepare a single dated record for both tables to initial. The next file should preserve the original entries and explain any change in method.
