The public account of the deep garden blight relies on the bed rotation map and the growers’ sample 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 faint ring on the underside of leaves nearest the shared watering trench.
Runa Ash checked the bed rotation map and the growers’ sample notes against the field notes. The method is to separate available stock from stock that can reach a patient in time; it confirms the entries, but not every interpretation attached to them. The comparison covers 54 beds showing the same pale edge on their leaves; 50 appear in the prior file. No signed correction to either entry was present when this review closed.
Nera Doss, cultivator responsible for the south beds, said the source register was complete for its stated purpose. The office has not provided a separate measure for whether the affected beds should be isolated before the next communal harvest, so the public record cannot yet show which account is more representative.
Growers see the pattern spreading along one trench; the garden office says the samples do not yet distinguish rot from mineral stress. 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 follow-up survey file at the Deep Garden terraces beneath the south cistern. The soil readers will take paired samples from both sides of the trench. The next file should preserve the original entries and explain any change in method.
