The public account of the newcomer roll relies on the hall’s household roll and the separate list of unrepresented lodgers. A review of that source and the field notes finds a specific limit: the count can be repeated, but it does not include a second table set aside for people who need the proceedings interpreted.
Sella Mor checked the hall’s household roll and the separate list of unrepresented lodgers against the field notes. The method is to listen for the point where an abstract rule becomes a household obligation; it confirms the entries, but not every interpretation attached to them. The comparison covers 13 new household registrations; 15 appear in the prior file. No signed correction to either entry was present when this review closed.
Vara Nemm, delegate for residents in their first year in the fortress, said the source register was complete for its stated purpose. The office has not provided a separate measure for whether residents can raise a service problem before a sponsor or permanent address is recorded, so the public record cannot yet show which account is more representative.
The housing office says sponsorship helps prevent duplicate allotments; residents without local kin say the wait leaves them uncounted. 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 common measure file at the Lower Ward meeting hall. The hall will compare registration wait times across three wards. The next file should preserve the original entries and explain any change in method.
