The public account of the winter allotment relies on the household allocation book and the ward’s signed objections. A review of that source and the field notes finds a specific limit: the count can be repeated, but it does not include a slate board on which each ward marks the days its reserve will last.
Mara Veld checked the household allocation book and the ward’s signed objections 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 58 registered households; 62 appear in the prior file. No signed correction to either entry was present when this review closed.
Ira Dannel, delegate for the Lower Steps ward, said the source register was complete for its stated purpose. The office has not provided a separate measure for how reserve grain is divided when two wards reach the ration line in the same week, so the public record cannot yet show which account is more representative.
The old rule favors wards by population; delegates from the steepest passages argue that travel time and storage loss also matter. 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.
The clerk has matched the claim to its source register and named the missing record. The entry belongs to the second reading file at the Upper Chamber of Measures. Ward delegates will return with separate estimates of loss and delivery time. The next file should preserve the original entries and explain any change in method.
