The public account of the herb reserve relies on the reserve labels and the healers’ weekly issue 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 shelf kept clear beneath the drip line from the upper stone seam.
Runa Ash checked the reserve labels and the healers’ weekly issue 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 41 bundles still within their marked use period; 38 appear in the prior file. No signed correction to either entry was present when this review closed.
Meri Sarn, keeper of the city’s dried-herb reserve, said the source register was complete for its stated purpose. The office has not provided a separate measure for whether reserve bundles can be moved closer to the clinics without raising the risk of damp damage, so the public record cannot yet show which account is more representative.
The central store is dry but distant; the neighborhood cabinets are faster to reach but vary in temperature. 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 clerk has matched the claim to its source register and named the missing record. The entry belongs to the closeout hearing file at the dry herb room behind the public infirmary. Two cabinets will be monitored through the next deep-winter cycle. The next file should preserve the original entries and explain any change in method.
