The public account of the stair permit relies on the public works docket and the surveyor’s marked elevation sheets. A review of that source and the field notes finds a specific limit: the count can be repeated, but it does not include the handrail that narrows where the old stair meets a newer stone landing.
Mara Veld checked the public works docket and the surveyor’s marked elevation sheets against the field notes. The method is to begin with the signed text, then test it against the people asked to carry it out; it confirms the entries, but not every interpretation attached to them. The comparison covers 12 permit applications; 13 appear in the prior file. No signed correction to either entry was present when this review closed.
Eda Korrin, surveyor for the North Rise ward, said the source register was complete for its stated purpose. The office has not provided a separate measure for whether a new public stair can pass through a shared landing without closing the older route, so the public record cannot yet show which account is more representative.
The proposed alignment shortens the climb for upper homes but leaves less turning room for freight carriers. 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 new complaint or proposal has been entered under a dated docket. The entry belongs to the service audit file at the Upper Chamber of Measures. A second survey must test the turning radius with loaded handcarts. The next file should preserve the original entries and explain any change in method.
