A review of grant applications, assessor notes and household appeal letters finds a gap between the total in the public summary and the conditions recorded at the low streets below West Wall. The difference does not prove that anyone misstated the file. It shows what the public count leaves out: the visit schedule groups houses by street rather than by damage report date.
The grant applications, assessor notes and household appeal letters lists 79 homes with a completed repair visit; the previous window lists 79. Tomas Reed checked both against time-stamped route logs checked against field visits. The source was checked against a second copy held by Lea Morris. No dated correction to either copy was present when the comparison closed.
The office says street grouping saves travel time. Residents with older damage reports say the schedule hides how long they have waited. 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 urgent repairs are assessed in the order residents need them.
Afield visit checks the posted rule against the route residents actually use. The Year first, market fall window 3 file remains open for its scheduled decision. The ward will publish wait time beside each repair category.
