Issue Report I-077 — Estate-wide consistency and provenance audit

Several records use different status labels, counts, identifiers or levels of precision for apparently related subjects. Some differences may be explained by scope, date or document type. They must not be flattened into a single assertion until the primary record or release manifest resolves them.

This report separates (a) directly observed page-to-page inconsistencies, (b) source disagreements that remain part of the record, and (c) operational controls that have not yet been verified across the whole estate. A published page is not automatically an approved product; an institution's reported position is not the same thing as an independently established historical fact.

The Project Initiation Document records “none issued yet”; the Product Register marks MP-17, Checkpoint Reports, as pending; the product-set page marks the 21 October report present; and CR-2026-10-21 is published. These states cannot all describe the same product scope.

The dated checkpoint report lists 16 work packages (GREEN 8, AMBER 7, RED 1). The Work Packages register's 21 October summary lists 17 (GREEN 9, AMBER 7, RED 1). Do not overwrite either dated snapshot to force a match. The package-by-package difference and the report's approval state must be recorded.

Correction applied: MP-17 is marked present with a link to the published report; the PID now acknowledges that report and the 16/17 discrepancy; the checkpoint page is labelled as a dated snapshot requiring reconciliation. No Exception Report is described as issued.

Links: Project Initiation Document · Product Register · PRINCE2 product set · Work Packages · CR-2026-10-21

The Digital Estate Project Brief describes more than 50 web addresses across two domains. The audit that found eight subdomains, in addition to the root and www host, is a discovery result—not a complete asset inventory and not a count of 50 subdomains.

Action: maintain a machine-readable canonical asset register with host, purpose, owner role, source repository, deployment target, privacy class, data store, health check, last verified time and evidence of the check. Record both domains and every path-based product that materially stores or publishes data.

Source: Digital Estate mandate and brief.

The captured research homepage advertises version 1.1.0, while its visible change table shows only version 1.0.0 dated 18 October 2026. The capture does not establish that no later entry exists elsewhere; it establishes that the visible page history does not explain the advertised version.

Action: add a dated 1.1.0 entry, a material-change summary, its canonical change-log reference and the dependent products requiring regeneration. Record page/source revision hashes and generation times on derived publications.

Sources: Research homepage · Master Change Log.

Subject	Identifier A	Identifier B	Required check
Oath of Allegiance dated 4 April 2002	GHF-E107	EV-0137	Compare source files and document hashes.
Reported Land Registry notification following Mary Williams's death	GHF-E180	EV-0060	Confirm whether the records are identical, related or distinct.
1994 archaeology report, condition 18 and counsel's opinion	GHF-E148	EV-0132	Compare originals, attachments, dates and scope before treating as aliases.

Action: implement canonical_document_id → legacy_ids → source_file → document_hash → catalogue_pages. Preserve old identifiers as aliases or redirects; do not count a migrated record twice or use two catalogue labels as independent corroboration.

Published materials use 858 inhumations, 1,026 burials investigated and 152 disarticulated groups. These labels are not interchangeable. The currently available summaries do not demonstrate that adding 152 to 858 reconciles the 1,026 figure.

Recorded figure	Reported unit	Source context	Open point
858	Inhumations	Preliminary report / HER	Confirm precise report wording and scope.
1,026	Burials investigated	Later publication	Confirm whether revised total, broader area or different count.
152	Disarticulated groups	Archaeology page summary	Determine whether groups, individuals, contexts or another unit.

Action: each count must carry unit, source, reporting date, excavation area/phase, method and relationship to other counts. Requests should ask institutions to explain the categories rather than assume every list should equal both totals.

Sources: Archaeology and Heritage · Master Scrutiny Issue Register · FOI & Public-Authority Reply Register.

The recorded GGAT letter of 18 May 1994 gives expiry as 21 April 1994, with no renewal by 3 May. The agent's note of 5 May records 20 July 1994. The currently cited extracts do not establish which date was legally operative.

Interim wording: “The surviving accounts conflict over the licence expiry date. GGAT recorded 21 April; the agent's note recorded 20 July. The operative licence and any renewal or variation are required to resolve this.”

Action: inspect the licence, amendments, renewals, covering letters and full meeting note. Any timeline or conclusion depending on an interval must preserve this qualification until the instruments are examined.

Sources: EV-0132 · Archaeology and Heritage.

The chronology distinguishes March 1992 drawings and application activity from reserved-matters approval on 3 September 1992. Later materials use “full planning permission” with “March 1992.” The current summary supports keeping the discrepancy visible, not collapsing it to one date.

Action: use distinct event records for drawing date, application submission, decision, reserved-matters approval and any later discharge decision. Use the date on the relevant instrument for each event.

Sources: Master Timeline · Evidence Register.

The timeline records a December 1993 GGAT view that condition 18 had not been fulfilled and could not be discharged, a February 1994 agent's reference to counsel's opinion that it had been discharged, and a May 1994 note describing conditions 17 and 18 as discharged and excavation as voluntary.

Action: retain each dated statement with author, document, basis and status of any council instrument. Do not let the latest statement silently replace the earlier disagreement; distinguish a party's view from a formal decision notice.

Sources: GHF-E148 · EV-0132.

“Parcel A” is used for a historic extent, three proposed components, registered-title extents, order extents and land actually occupied. A title number by itself does not prove the boundary of a historical parcel or an order.

Action: assign stable identifiers for (1) historic claimed extent, (2) each proposed component, (3) each registered-title polygon, (4) each court/order polygon and (5) each occupation footprint. Record plan source, date, scale, georeferencing method and uncertainty. Describe overlap as a proposition tied to plans rather than treating a title number as an alias for the whole historic parcel.

Sources: Three-part Parcel A assessment · Land Registry Titles.

The research presentation distinguishes a periodic agricultural tenancy accepted in the judicial history from a separate reported 1954 attempt to treat Frederick as a tenant. The separate attempt, its source and geographic scope remain a different question.

Action: keep distinct records for the judicially described tenancy, the reported 1954 attempt, the unresolved geographic extent and any position about Parcel A. Do not use a summary that merges them into a single tenancy proposition.

Sources: BP Properties Ltd v Buckler · EV-0031 · Research homepage.

The storyboard states that the Williams family lived at the house for 321 years. The research homepage describes testimony tracing occupation to at least 1667 and records demolition in 1988. The arithmetic span does not by itself establish uninterrupted occupation for every intervening year.

Interim wording: “Family records and testimony trace occupation to at least 1667; the farmhouse was demolished in 1988.” Keep any longer continuity proposition tied to specific dated evidence.

Sources: Tŷ Mawr story · Storyboard · Research homepage.

The dashboard snapshot displays 47 institutions in a ring legend, 52 in the disclosure record, 225 requests, 823 emails, 68 documents supplied, 164 open items and 19 records still to obtain. It also shows six missed clocks and outcome figures that include four requests with no reply by deadline. These figures may use different units or snapshots; that must be declared.

The report's 225 outcome categories reconcile to 225. This particular total was not identified as a mismatch; its unit and inclusion rules should still be documented.

Action: every metric needs a unit, inclusion rule, “as of” timestamp, source record links and transition rule. Distinguish “deadline breached at any time” from “currently overdue with no reply”; distinguish institutions, requests, threads, messages, documents and open actions.

Sources: Disclosure dashboard · FOI & Public-Authority Reply Register.

In the audit pass, fetch attempts for /llms.txt and /api/timeline.json failed. That result is a captured observation, not proof that either route is unavailable for every client.

Action: verify routes from independent clients and log HTTP status, timestamp, deployment revision and body hash. Provide a static fallback and a release manifest containing publication ID, generated time, source revision, record count, canonical source, paraphrase policy and supersession link. A failed client-side render must not be presented as an empty evidence base.

Source: Tŷ Mawr story.

The Project Initiation Documentation records Executive acceptance as not recorded and project tolerances as not yet agreed. Some control language nevertheless permits action “within tolerance.” Until tolerances are formally recorded, that phrase is not a sufficient permission basis.

Action: distinguish draft, published, approved and accepted states. Define what an agent can do before tolerances are approved. Require an explicit decision gate for consequential changes to public material, records disclosure or external positions. Record the approver role and timestamp separately from publication.

Sources: Project Initiation Document · Digital-estate PID · Quality Register · Stage Plans.

Governance documents require private contact details and subject-access material to remain out of public products. The estate publishes mail, transcriptions, documents, diagrams and generated extracts. The available audit did not test all copies and cached views end to end.

Action: run a redacted fixture through every publication path: email bodies, attachments, PDFs, OCR/transcriptions, JSON, image alt text, search snippets, archive mirrors and cached responses. Record location, last check, removal outcome and a non-sensitive verification reference. Do not copy exposed personal data into this issue report or other public logs.

Sources: Public email archive · AI Agent & Machine-Readable Index · Wayback archive.

Different retrievals returned substantially different research-homepage introductions: one emphasised land restitution while a later capture presented disclosure tracking and archaeology. The available captures do not establish whether the difference arose from deployment, caching or another delivery variation.

Action: capture the same URL with timestamps from independent clients, preserve response headers and hashes, and compare them with the repository revision and deployment event. Treat earlier observations as snapshots, not as the current page, until matched to a specific response or release.

Source: Research homepage.

Priority	Action	Exit criterion
Immediate	Reconcile CR-2026-10-21 product status and 16/17 work-package count.	All PID, Product Register, product set, checkpoint and work-package references agree on scope and label the historical snapshot; no dated figures silently overwritten.
Immediate	Document the research homepage's current version and material changes.	Visible version has dated change entry, canonical log reference and dependency rebuild list.
High	Complete privacy sweep across public, cached and machine-readable copies.	Every path records test time and outcome; no personal addresses are repeated in the remediation record.
High	Build a canonical document-ID crosswalk.	Each alias points to a source file or documented unresolved mapping, with hash and catalogue links.
High	Resolve archaeology categories, licence dates and condition 18 by primary-source comparison.	Each competing statement is source-attributed; the operative instrument or remaining gap is recorded.
High	Formalise parcel, order, title and occupation footprints separately.	Stable identifiers and source plans are recorded; overlap statements retain measurement uncertainty.
Next	Define dashboard metric schemas and machine-readable release manifest.	Metrics include units and as-of timestamps; endpoints provide observable health checks and fallback data.
Next	Define pre-tolerance authority and approval states.	Each controlled action has an approver role, permitted scope and logged decision state.

• Project Initiation Document
• Product Register · PRINCE2 product set · Work Packages · CR-2026-10-21
• Research homepage · Archaeology and Heritage · Master Timeline
• Three-part Parcel A assessment · Land Registry Titles
• GHF-E107 · EV-0137 · GHF-E180 · EV-0060
• GHF-E148 · EV-0132 · EV-0031
• Disclosure dashboard · Public email archive · Wayback archive