A review of civic registers, correction requests and the published index finds a gap between the total in the public summary and the conditions recorded at the public archive at Vesperhold Hall. The difference does not prove that anyone misstated the file. It shows what the public count leaves out: a decades-old neighborhood boundary is copied differently in two public books.
The civic registers, correction requests and the published index lists 31 corrections linked to the record and the date they were made; the previous window lists 34. Mira Noct checked both against household interviews paired with the posted schedule and room calendar. The source was checked against a second copy held by Lucien Vale. No dated correction to either copy was present when the comparison closed.
The registry wants one current boundary. Residents ask that the earlier line remain visible with its date. 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 to correct a long-used index without erasing the versions residents relied on.
The service board posts the result and its first operating date. The responsible office has begun the follow-up set by the board, which adopted an amended service interval for the next window.
