The first flood map notice began with the sealed flood map, the copy register and the mapmaker’s loose notes. Since then, the city has moved through a source check, a public hearing and a trial at the lower archive’s map room.
The current docket records 52 marked waterways compared with the modern survey; the earlier file recorded 51. The count is more specific than the first summary, but still does not answer whether the old route is evidence of a lost spill channel or simply a copyist’s correction mark.
A key point in the timeline was the discovery of a faded blue line that bends around a sealed door absent from the modern map. It narrowed the dispute from a general claim about the rule to a question about how the rule behaves at the site.
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. The parties now share more of the record than they did at the start, though they assign it different weight.
The first implementation notes have been compared with the promise in the minutes. The entry belongs to the inspection order file at the lower archive’s map room. The archive will publish a high-resolution copy with each later mark dated separately. The next review will show whether the change lasts beyond this docket or returns as another temporary exception.
