A review of pump cycle cards, water level marks and the lower room queue finds a gap between the total in the public summary and the conditions recorded at the southern well beneath Moss Row. The difference does not prove that anyone misstated the file. It shows what the public count leaves out: the level falls after a long market draw and returns during the quiet shift.
The pump cycle cards, water level marks and the lower room queue lists 61 pump cycles with a matching level reading; the previous window lists 63. Kip Copper checked both against check-out slips compared with the handoff mark at the next station. The source was checked against a second copy held by Ari Flint. No dated correction to either copy was present when the comparison closed.
The pump operator counts cycles. Households track the level at the lower room before the next draw. 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 schedule a shared draw when the well recovers at a different time than the pump cycle.
Asecond reader compares each mark with the location on the wall. The Year fourth, first seep window 3 file remains open for its scheduled decision. The well board will place recovery marks beside the pump schedule.
