A decision on the water queue should be judged by what happens at the Seventh Bridge landing. The docket is at step 4 of the current review. Its latest entry reads: Residents and workers have had their first chance to question the measure in public. A rule that looks complete in the chamber can still leave the people who use it carrying an unmeasured cost.
50 posted collection turns were entered this cycle, compared with 49 in the prior file. That comparison matters because the public summary counts entries. The open question is whether a posted queue can remain fair when the flow slows at the end of a long stair.
The water office counts collection turns; residents count the hours they wait beside a dry cistern. The current record does not settle that disagreement. The objection deserves a direct answer, but it is not a reason to make the rule permanent before the affected residents can check the method.
Sella Mor checked the public queue board and the sluice keeper’s release marks 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 practical evidence is a line of copper tags that households move when a release is delayed; any new measure should record that condition beside the total.
The chamber should approve a limited trial with a published end date, a way to record exceptions and a named reviewer. An observer from the Upper Reservoir will time a full release at both landings. That is the narrowest decision that can be defended from the evidence now available.
