A review of load cards, repair invoices and the closure board finds a gap between the total in the public summary and the conditions recorded at the bridge over Dry Channel. The difference does not prove that anyone misstated the file. It shows what the public count leaves out: the lower support is reinforced while one lane remains open.
The load cards, repair invoices and the closure board lists 94 heavy crossings during the repair limit; the previous window lists 88. Orrik Smelt checked both against contract clauses set beside paid invoices and the work completed. The source was checked against a second copy held by Vek Cinder. No dated correction to either copy was present when the comparison closed.
Carriers favor a supervised crossing. Masons say the second lane changes vibration on the support. 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 one-lane access can continue while a support is being reset.
The board publishes options with paid time, water use or cost shown separately. The Year first, cinder winter window 3 file remains open for its scheduled decision. The bridge crew will compare readings with the lane closed and under one supervised load.
