A review of collection labels, transfer notes and the public catalog index finds a gap between the total in the public summary and the conditions recorded at the city collection room at North Veil Museum. The difference does not prove that anyone misstated the file. It shows what the public count leaves out: one object was catalogued before its transfer note was copied.
The collection labels, transfer notes and the public catalog index lists 58 objects with a dated transfer and a named source; the previous window lists 64. Sera Voss checked both against service hours compared with arrival records from the same window. The source was checked against a second copy held by Lucien Vale. No dated correction to either copy was present when the comparison closed.
Curators say the label describes the accepted history. Researchers ask that the earlier source note remain attached. 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 public collection distinguishes what is known from what is attributed later.
The service board posts the result and its first operating date. The responsible office has begun the follow-up set by the board, which approved a short trial with an end date and public review.
