Start with the sealed flood map, the copy register and the mapmaker’s loose notes. It is the source used to make a decision about whether the old route is evidence of a lost spill channel or simply a copyist’s correction mark; it is not the decision itself. The rule only works if the source describes the conditions at the lower archive’s map room.
The latest count is 23 marked waterways compared with the modern survey; the prior file listed 21. A public vote has approved a narrow change while leaving the larger question open. The difference is a signal to check, not a verdict about who is right.
The disputed point is practical: The mapmaker’s notes were added decades later; the archive has not found a matching field survey. One side relies on the posted total, while the other points to a faded blue line that bends around a sealed door absent from the modern map.
The risk of reading the file too broadly is that an entry becomes a conclusion. 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.
Next: The archive will publish a high-resolution copy with each later mark dated separately. A useful update will publish the method, exceptions and review date with the number.
