A review of route maintenance agreement and closure notices from both towns finds a gap between the total in the public summary and the conditions recorded at the covered path through the south ridge. The difference does not prove that anyone misstated the file. It shows what the public count leaves out: the path has two maintenance crews with separate notice boards.
The route maintenance agreement and closure notices from both towns lists 45 closures posted at both route entrances before work begins; the previous window lists 43. Lucien Vale checked both against the original record checked against the date it was amended and used. The source was checked against a second copy held by Lucien Vale. No dated correction to either copy was present when the comparison closed.
Each crew posts its own interval. Travelers ask which notice applies where the two sections meet. 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 travelers receive one closure time when the crews work on different schedules.
Asecond office compares arrival, service and publication times. The Year second, late winter window 3 file remains open for its scheduled decision. The route clerks will publish a single shared interval before the next repair.
