The public account of the language hall relies on the interpreter rota and the notices requested by ward offices. A review of that source and the field notes finds a specific limit: the count can be repeated, but it does not include a wooden board with the same hearing notice written in four scripts.
Eni Ved checked the interpreter rota and the notices requested by ward offices against the field notes. The method is to ask who can use a service without an interpreter, sponsor or spare hour; it confirms the entries, but not every interpretation attached to them. The comparison covers 68 public notices translated before a meeting; 69 appear in the prior file. No signed correction to either entry was present when this review closed.
Leth Aran, interpreter coordinator for the south wards, said the source register was complete for its stated purpose. The office has not provided a separate measure for which city decisions need a translated notice before residents can give meaningful comment, so the public record cannot yet show which account is more representative.
The clerk counts a notice as available once a copy is requested; interpreters say requests often arrive after a meeting is set. 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 public vote has approved a narrow change while leaving the larger question open. The entry belongs to the second reading file at the shared language hall near the South Welcome House. The hall will compare request dates with the dates printed on the hearing notices. The next file should preserve the original entries and explain any change in method.
