A review of tank transfer slips and the contract’s reuse allowance finds a gap between the total in the public summary and the conditions recorded at the reuse tank at Ash Yard. The difference does not prove that anyone misstated the file. It shows what the public count leaves out: the agreement records water entering the tank but not the workshop that receives it.
The tank transfer slips and the contract’s reuse allowance lists 41 transfers with a destination and a second-use note; the previous window lists 44. Grikka Ash checked both against crew logs compared with the inspection card for the same shift. The source was checked against a second copy held by Orrik Smelt. No dated correction to either copy was present when the comparison closed.
The mill counts input saved. Shops ask the contract board to show which line received the reused water. 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 how a shared reuse credit is assigned when several shops draw from one tank.
The office posts the change and records its first operating measure. The responsible office has begun the follow-up set by the board, which adopted a revised schedule with a worker review period.
