A review of inspection cards, shift logs and claim decisions finds a gap between the total in the public summary and the conditions recorded at the fitting shop at Copper Row. The difference does not prove that anyone misstated the file. It shows what the public count leaves out: the shop uses one inspection card for a crew that changes at midday.
The inspection cards, shift logs and claim decisions lists 35 claims reviewed with an attached inspection card; the previous window lists 32. Ada Merrow checked both against ward records and interviews with people who use the service. The source was checked against a second copy held by Hale Dunn. No dated correction to either copy was present when the comparison closed.
The insurer treats the card as a shift record. Workers ask that each handoff carry its own inspection line. 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 a single card records a hazard seen by both halves of a split shift.
Asecond office checks the count and records any difference in method. The Year second, cold harbor window 3 file remains open for its scheduled decision. The claims board will test a second handoff line on the card.
