A review of sealed manifests, inspection slips and receiving store cards finds a gap between the total in the public summary and the conditions recorded at the shared goods table at Far Quay. The difference does not prove that anyone misstated the file. It shows what the public count leaves out: one storage handoff occurs before the receiving city’s public desk opens.
The sealed manifests, inspection slips and receiving store cards lists 29 loads with a matching seal from dispatch to receipt; the previous window lists 26. 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 Mira Noct. No dated correction to either copy was present when the comparison closed.
The carrier counts the seal at dispatch. The receiving clerk counts it when the store opens. 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 buyer traces a load transferred while one city desk is closed.
The board publishes options with the people and dates affected stated clearly. The Year second, late winter window 3 file remains open for its scheduled decision. Both cities will add a transfer mark to the shared manifest.
