The public account of the flood map relies on the sealed flood map, the copy register and the mapmaker’s loose notes. A review of that source and the field notes finds a specific limit: the count can be repeated, but it does not include a faded blue line that bends around a sealed door absent from the modern map.
Ava Korr checked the sealed flood map, the copy register and the mapmaker’s loose notes against the field notes. The method is to note who made a record, who preserved it and who can still consult it; it confirms the entries, but not every interpretation attached to them. The comparison covers 36 marked waterways compared with the modern survey; 39 appear in the prior file. No signed correction to either entry was present when this review closed.
Ava Korr, keeper of the flood map collection, said the source register was complete for its stated purpose. The office has not provided a separate measure for whether the old route is evidence of a lost spill channel or simply a copyist’s correction mark, so the public record cannot yet show which account is more representative.
The mapmaker’s notes were added decades later; the archive has not found a matching field survey. 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.
A second set of hands has checked the count and recorded where the methods differ. The entry belongs to the district return file at the lower archive’s map room. The archive will publish a high-resolution copy with each later mark dated separately. The next file should preserve the original entries and explain any change in method.
