The public account of the upper reservoir relies on the reservoir depth marks and the household release schedule. A review of that source and the field notes finds a specific limit: the count can be repeated, but it does not include a narrow spillway whose lip sits one thumb above the older survey mark.
Tavi Orr checked the reservoir depth marks and the household release schedule against the field notes. The method is to trace a system from its control gate to the last household it is meant to serve; it confirms the entries, but not every interpretation attached to them. The comparison covers 68 depth marks checked at dawn; 72 appear in the prior file. No signed correction to either entry was present when this review closed.
Pera Durn, water surveyor for the west face, said the source register was complete for its stated purpose. The office has not provided a separate measure for whether the city can retain a larger reserve without flooding the maintenance walk below, so the public record cannot yet show which account is more representative.
The reserve proposal uses a recent high-water mark; older surveyors say the mark was taken before the spillway was cleared. 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 field check has compared the written rule with the place where it is used. The entry belongs to the late-season check file at the upper reservoir cut into the west face. The survey office will publish both measurements and their dates side by side. The next file should preserve the original entries and explain any change in method.
