A review of sample cards and the posted map of monitoring points finds a gap between the total in the public summary and the conditions recorded at the east ward sample posts. The difference does not prove that anyone misstated the file. It shows what the public count leaves out: the newest post is on a roof rather than beside the work lane.
The sample cards and the posted map of monitoring points lists 38 samples with a point name and shift recorded; the previous window lists 43. Vek Cinder checked both against meter readings checked against a dated shift and operating condition. The source was checked against a second copy held by Grikka Ash. No dated correction to either copy was present when the comparison closed.
Operators say the roof gives an unblocked regional reading. Workers request a paired street-level sample. The office has not supplied a separate measure that would settle the disagreement, so the two explanations remain competing accounts.
This report supports a narrower finding: the count is repeatable, but it is not enough to decide whether a roof reading describes the air workers breathe at street level.
The clerk closes this docket and assigns the next window a fresh scope. The board closed this docket after it retained the existing rule and published the operating record. The next window starts with a fresh record.
