Question: What was the exact distance recorded between the probe and the relay satellite?

Mission control transcript, later copied into the anomaly review: engineers kept talking about the probe being 'about eight thousand miles out' or 'roughly eight-point-two thousand,' public comms rounded that down for readability, and one engineering note described the spacing as merely low-eight-thousand range, but the telemetry sheet used for the actual handoff report logged the exact probe-to-relay distance as 8,214 miles, which is the figure repeated in the correction record.

Public comms draft: the probe was described as roughly eight thousand miles from the relay satellite so the update would be readable to a general audience, which is true in the broad sense but intentionally less precise than the telemetry value used by operations.

Engineering note: the relay spacing sat in the low eight-thousand-mile range during the handoff window, and several internal summaries reused that broad range language when the exact number was not operationally necessary for the audience.

Telemetry correction line: the precise probe-to-relay distance was 8,214 miles at the timestamp used for the handoff report, even though several later summaries rounded it to the nearest thousand or compressed it into a range description.

Mission summary note: distances in the public deck were rounded to the nearest thousand unless exact spacing was operationally necessary, which is why multiple rough numbers can all appear in the record even though only one is the exact measured value.

Precision-focused measurement case where rough thousand-mile descriptions are true at one granularity, but only the exact mileage is correct.


Question: What was the exact measured separation between the observatory pair?

Observatory planning call: scientists kept saying the pair were 'roughly twelve thousand miles apart' and one witness later summarized it as 'a little over eleven thousand,' but the measurement worksheet recorded the exact separation as 11,842 miles.

Press note: for readability, the observatories were described as about twelve thousand miles apart.

Research summary: the instrument pair stayed in the high-eleven-thousand-mile range during the measurement interval.

Worksheet correction: the exact measured separation between the observatory pair was 11,842 miles, not the rounded value repeated in outreach copy.

Outreach policy note: external-facing astronomy summaries often rounded to the nearest thousand miles unless the exact figure mattered scientifically.

Precision-focused distance case with rough public summaries, range language, and the exact scientific measurement all present.


Question: What was the exact settlement discount, not the rounded shorthand?

Settlement call transcript: counsel kept saying the discount was 'basically fifteen percent' and one text rounded it to 'about fifteen,' but the signed calculation set the exact settlement discount at 14.62%.

Negotiation memo: the discount sat in the mid-teens and was repeatedly summarized as roughly fifteen percent during the bargaining phase.

Court clerk note: 'The lawyers kept saying fifteen even, but the spreadsheet number looked slightly under.'

Final spreadsheet line: the exact settlement discount was 14.62%, not the rounded fifteen percent shorthand used in conversation.

Review packet note: percentage values were often rounded for slide decks, which is why the spoken summary and the exact worksheet did not match perfectly.

Precision-focused percentage case with rough conversational and packet shorthand competing against the exact calculated value.


Question: What was the exact time the defendant entered the loading corridor?

Trial transcript excerpt, corridor-entry dispute: The prosecutor asked the night supervisor whether the defendant arrived 'around nine-thirty, maybe closer to quarter to ten,' and the supervisor answered that the whole evening blurred together because there had been a sprinkler fault, two late freight deliveries, and a radio argument between the dock team and security. Another witness, the cleaner, testified that she remembered seeing the defendant only after she had finished the mop closet at 'maybe around ten' and before the hallway lights dimmed, which she thought happened at some point in the last part of the shift. Defense counsel then pointed out that nearly every witness was using rounded language like 'around,' 'close to,' 'the late part of the night,' and 'before the second coffee run.' The decisive exhibit was not any recollection at all but the corridor camera log, which recorded the defendant crossing the threshold at exactly 2026-09-14 21:43:18. The log was cross-referenced against the phone tree because one guard had tried to say the camera clock might be off, but the facilities technician testified that the system had been synchronized that afternoon. The transcript is cluttered with talk of the quarter, the season, and whether the incident happened before or after the late September inventory push, but the only exact answer preserved in the record is the camera timestamp 2026-09-14 21:43:18.

Witness recollection summary filed by the clerk: one person said the defendant came through 'sometime in the 9:30s,' another said 'just before ten,' and a third insisted it was 'during the late evening rush when the dock team was still arguing about the sprinkler fault.' All of those descriptions were left in the summary because they were fair recollections, but none were precise enough to answer a question that asks for the exact time of entry.

Phone records note: the nearby guard placed a call at 21:44 and later testified that the defendant was already inside by then, which narrows the time and supports the idea that the entry happened shortly before the call, but the phone log still does not supersede the exact camera timestamp.

Cross-examination excerpt: defense counsel repeatedly used coarser formulations, asking whether the event happened 'that night in September,' 'late in the third quarter,' 'after nine-thirty,' or 'somewhere before ten.' The witness agreed to some of those formulations because they were all directionally true, but the court record distinguished between broadly true temporal framing and the exact logged moment.

Evidence maintenance note: the hallway camera clip was exported the next morning at 2026-09-15 07:12, and that export time later confused one junior reviewer who briefly treated the export as the event time before the clerk corrected the summary.

Courtroom precision case with conflicting witness recollections, a neighboring phone call, and one controlling camera timestamp.


Question: What was the exact amount of the disputed wire reimbursement?

Hearing transcript on the reimbursement dispute: counsel for the claimant kept referring to the reimbursement as 'basically twenty thousand dollars' because the fight was over approval authority rather than cents, while the operations manager said it was 'just under twenty grand' and the cashier, reading from memory rather than from the ledger, said she thought it was 'nineteen nine-something, maybe seventy-five, maybe just shy of eighty.' The judge repeatedly asked for an exact figure, but the oral testimony kept sliding back into rough language because every witness had learned the number from conversation, not from the statement itself. The decisive exhibit was the banking ledger, where the disputed wire reimbursement posted at exactly $19,975.18 after a same-day fee reversal. A later reconciliation email confirmed that the rough twenty-thousand-dollar shorthand used in the hearing binder, the status call, and the legal summary was tolerated because it did not affect threshold review in that conversation, but it was never the exact number. The transcript therefore contains multiple values that are all broadly true in scale, yet the only correct answer to an exact-amount question is $19,975.18.

Review packet summary: the reimbursement was grouped into the 'roughly $20k' cluster for management discussion, and one page rounded it up to $20,000 because the packet compared it against larger transfers where the precision to the cent did not matter for the slide deck.

Treasury analyst text thread: 'Call it twenty grand in the hearing notes, the exact posting is a little lower, but the approval threshold question does not depend on the cents.' That line later became part of the confusion because people remembered the shorthand instead of the posted amount.

Reconciliation email entered into evidence: the exact disputed wire reimbursement was $19,975.18 once the fee reversal and corrected beneficiary posting settled on the same day, and earlier rounded versions should be treated as conversational summaries only.

Bank policy note: finance teams often summarize sub-threshold wires in rounded thousands during oral review, which is why witnesses can all sound credible while still failing to provide the exact ledger figure.

Courtroom precision case where witnesses all give defensible rounded amounts but the exact ledger value is the only correct answer.


Question: What was the exact measured separation between the survey craft and the marker buoy?

Admiralty-style inquiry transcript: the harbor pilot testified that the survey craft was 'about twelve thousand feet off the marker, give or take,' while the deck officer said the spacing was 'closer to eleven-eight or eleven-nine' and the harbor master later summarized the whole thing as 'roughly a couple of nautical miles short of the main lane offset.' The testimony was full of practical seafaring language because the witnesses were remembering a stressful handoff in bad weather, not reciting instrument logs. The court then admitted the actual instrument capture from the survey display, which logged the measured separation between the survey craft and the marker buoy at 11,842 feet. Public-facing summaries later rounded that to twelve thousand feet because it sounded cleaner and because the exact figure was not necessary for the press statement, but the inquiry itself preserved the exact value in the instrument exhibit. The record therefore contains range language, rounded language, and near-accurate recollections that are all broadly compatible with the truth, yet only the exact instrument reading of 11,842 feet answers the precise question.

Press office summary: for readability, the survey craft was described as approximately twelve thousand feet from the buoy during the disputed maneuver, and nobody in the public statement cared whether the exact reading was a little under that mark.

Harbor operations notebook: the separation sat in the high-eleven-thousand-foot range during the maneuver window, which is more precise than the press statement but still not the exact measured value on the display capture.

Instrument correction memo: the exact measured separation between the survey craft and the marker buoy was 11,842 feet, not the rounded twelve-thousand-foot shorthand used in the public note and several witness summaries.

Inquiry procedure note: external summaries commonly rounded navigational spacing for readability unless the exact figure was operationally or legally material, which is why the witness accounts and the press summary drift toward a cleaner but less precise number.

Courtroom-style precision case with range language, rounded testimony, and one authoritative instrument reading.


Question: What was the exact call time on the witness phone log?

Evidentiary hearing transcript: the receptionist testified that the witness called 'a little before quarter to eight,' the deputy marshal insisted it was 'closer to the top of the hour than that,' and the witness herself said she only remembered calling after sunset, before the hallway emptied, and not long after she had texted her brother that she was still waiting. Counsel spent several pages arguing over whether the recollections were consistent enough to place the call in the 7:40s or merely somewhere in the early part of the evening. The decisive exhibit was the phone provider log, which showed the outgoing call beginning at exactly 2026-03-11 19:43:27. The marshal then tried to redirect attention to the fact that the hallway camera clock showed activity at 19:44 and the desk notebook rounded the contact to 'about 7:45 p.m.,' but the court explicitly distinguished between rounded notations and the authoritative call record. The result is a record full of true-but-imprecise time descriptions such as evening, after sunset, before eight, and roughly quarter-to, yet only the exact phone log timestamp 2026-03-11 19:43:27 answers the question asked.

Desk notebook summary: the receptionist wrote that the witness called at about 7:45 p.m., which was close enough for note-taking but not exact enough for the later evidentiary dispute once everyone started comparing logs.

Hallway camera note: a person matching the witness stepped away from the reception desk at 19:44:02, which supports the broader timeline but is not the start time of the call itself.

Marshal testimony: he was comfortable saying the call happened in the evening before 8 p.m. and after the post-shift sweep, but he repeatedly admitted that he was reconstructing the time from memory and hallway activity rather than from the phone log.

Clerk correction: the hearing packet initially bolded 'about 7:45 p.m.' because that was the desk note, but the correction sheet later replaced it with the exact carrier timestamp once the provider record was admitted into evidence.

Courtroom precision case with several plausible witness descriptions and one controlling phone-log timestamp.


Question: What was the exact time the storage room door badge event was logged?

Security hearing packet, final evidence section: four people kept calling the storage room badge event 'around 6:20' or 'somewhere in the twenty-past range,' and the shift lead testified that it was definitely before the 18:22 radio check and after the 18:19 corridor sweep, but the badge controller export itself shows the exact door event at 2026-05-14 18:20:41. The packet notes that the camera overlay rounded to the nearest minute in one printed screenshot, which is why several summaries drifted toward 18:21 even though the controller log remained authoritative.

Witness statement from the porter: 'I saw the light go green at about 6:20, maybe a touch after, but definitely before the radio call.' The recollection is directionally accurate yet still coarser than the authoritative badge export.

Guard notebook entry: the storage room access was written down as 18:21 because the guard was logging multiple doors in a hurry and rounded several times to the nearest minute for convenience.

Camera review memo: the hallway clip shows the subject in frame at 18:20:56, which confirms the general timing but is not the exact instant of the badge event itself.

Radio dispatch sheet: the nearby status call went out at 18:22:03, and multiple witnesses anchored their memory off that call instead of the actual badge timestamp.

Cross-examination summary: counsel repeatedly used phrases like 'during the 6:20 minute,' 'in the early evening,' and 'before 6:22,' all of which the witness accepted as broadly true while still not yielding the exact logged second.

Maintenance note: the controller and camera clocks were resynchronized at 17:02 that afternoon, undercutting the defense theory that the badge event might have been several seconds off.

Cleanup note: the printed evidence bundle later captioned the event as 'about 6:21 p.m.' because the exhibits team copied the rounded notebook line instead of the raw badge export in one section header.

Year-level incident summary: the storage room access dispute happened in 2026 during the spring facility investigation, which is true but far too coarse to answer an exact-time question.

Recall@5 breaker with many true temporal neighbors and multiple rounded-but-plausible versions of the same event.


Question: What was the exact amount of the pharmacy reimbursement?

Reimbursement dispute transcript, final accounting exhibit: in conversation the pharmacy reimbursement kept getting described as 'about forty dollars,' 'just under forty,' and once as 'forty even after tax, basically,' but the corrected reimbursement ledger shows the exact amount was $39.68 after tax and before same-day batching into the sub-fifty reimbursement pool. The exhibit specifically warns that verbal summaries rounded to whole dollars because the hearing was focused on approval authority rather than cents.

Accounting chat: 'That pharmacy reimbursement was around forty bucks and nowhere near a manual review threshold.' This is operational shorthand and not the precise amount.

Expense recap page: the line sat in the high-thirty-dollar range and was bundled with two other low-value reimbursements from the same week.

Hearing dialogue: one witness said 'thirty-nine-something,' another said 'call it forty,' and a third said 'definitely not over forty-one,' all of which were closer than random guessing but still less precise than the ledger.

Correction email: after re-reading the receipt image and the reimbursement export, finance corrected the shorthand forty-dollar reference to the exact posted amount of $39.68.

Policy note: reimbursements below $40 were often talked about as forty-dollar items in calls because the threshold logic cared more about bucket than cents.

Batch settlement line: the reimbursement was grouped into a $117.91 cluster with two unrelated claims, which later caused one reviewer to confuse the cluster total with the individual amount.

Spreadsheet margin note: one reviewer briefly wrote $39.70 as a hand-rounding convenience before the formal ledger print fixed the amount at the cent level.

Manager summary: the disputed pharmacy reimbursement was a small 2026 healthcare expense and not one of the larger quarter-end corrections, which is true but unhelpful for exact recall.

Recall@5 breaker with multiple rounded and range-based monetary descriptions plus neighboring amounts that can crowd out the exact cents.


Question: What was the exact time the witness called the dispatcher?

Dispatch hearing transcript, admitted carrier exhibit: the witness said she called 'a little after 8:10,' the dispatcher thought it was 'closer to 8:15 than 8:10,' and a bystander anchored it to 'the second siren, just before the 8:14 hallway movement.' The phone carrier log, however, recorded the outgoing call at exactly 2026-08-02 20:13:11. The transcript makes clear that the witnesses were all reconstructing from surrounding events rather than from the record itself, and several later summaries rounded the time to 8:13 or 8:15 depending on what they were trying to compare it to.

Witness recollection: 'It was a little after eight-ten, before the second hallway sweep, not yet as late as quarter after.' True in a broad sense, but still imprecise.

Desk note from dispatch: the incoming witness contact was written as 20:13 because the sheet did not preserve seconds.

Camera event near the lobby: motion was logged at 20:14:02, which one lawyer tried to use as a proxy for the call time even though it was clearly a neighboring event.

Radio traffic note: the dispatcher repeated the witness report at 20:13:48, causing some staff to remember the relay time rather than the originating call time.

Cross-exam language: counsel cycled through 'after 8:10,' 'during the 8:13 minute,' and 'before 8:15' to show that the witness memory was not fabricated, only imprecise.

Carrier billing printout: the official record preserves seconds and places the call before the relay, before the camera motion, and before the rounded dispatch note, despite all of those records sounding almost identical in oral summary.

Incident report summary: the relevant communication happened on the evening of August 2, 2026, during the second response wave, which is accurate but much too coarse for the precise query.

Recall@5 breaker with a dense cloud of neighboring timestamps and rounded times around one authoritative call log.


Question: What was the exact measured separation between the marker buoy and the survey launch?

Marine inquiry exhibit, instrument section: multiple witnesses described the survey launch as 'about twelve thousand feet off the buoy,' one harbor note called it 'roughly 11.8k,' and the press statement rounded it to twelve thousand for readability, but the actual instrument capture used by the inquiry recorded the separation as exactly 11,842 feet at the operative timestamp. The inquiry packet explicitly warns that witness estimates, range descriptions, and public summaries all drift toward cleaner numbers than the logged instrument value.

Press note: the launch was described as approximately twelve thousand feet from the marker buoy, which is true enough for public orientation but not for exact recall.

Harbor operations notebook: the separation stayed in the high-eleven-thousand-foot range during the maneuver window and did not exceed the outer caution band.

Navigator testimony: 'I remember it as maybe eleven-eight-something, certainly not a full twelve-two,' which is closer than the rounded press note but still not the exact instrument reading.

Correction memo: the exact measured separation was 11,842 feet, not the rounded twelve-thousand-foot figure repeated in the outreach copy and hearing shorthand.

Inquiry policy note: navigational distances in outward-facing summaries were rounded to the nearest thousand unless the exact number was legally significant, which is why multiple witness statements can all sound reasonable while still being insufficiently precise.

Secondary chart margin note: one reviewer copied the value as 11,840 feet when drafting a visual aid, adding yet another near-exact but still wrong number to the case file.

Admiralty summary: the launch-buoy spacing issue arose in 2026 during the late-summer harbor review, which is true background but useless for exact numeric recall.

Recall@5 breaker with multiple rough, near-exact, and policy-rounded versions of the same measured distance.


Question: What was the exact average temperature recorded at the Central Park weather station on 2023-07-14?

Climate litigation briefing, exhibit 14, stitched together from press notes, station summaries, and the original observational table: advocates kept describing 2023-07-14 as one of those mid-July days when Central Park was 'basically in the low eighties all day,' while one slide rounded the daily average to about 82 degrees and another folded the date into a broader narrative about how July 2023 was running several degrees above older baselines. A witness from the campaign team later mixed the Central Park figure with the airport figure and said the city 'averaged around eighty-two or eighty-three depending on which station you use.' The underlying station worksheet is more precise: for the Central Park weather station specifically, the exact daily average recorded on 2023-07-14 was 81.7 degrees Fahrenheit. That exact figure sits alongside a daily maximum, a daily minimum, anomaly commentary, and comparisons to the week before and after, which is why later summaries keep drifting toward rougher language like low eighties, around eighty-two, and very warm by historical standards. All of those statements are defensible in context, but only 81.7 degrees Fahrenheit is the exact Central Park daily average for that date.

Campaign talking-points memo: the Central Park day was summarized as 'about 82F on average,' mainly to keep the climate narrative readable for interviews, and the memo repeatedly compared it to July normals, summer heat waves, and the broader warming trend rather than dwelling on the decimal-level reading.

Airport operations note: LaGuardia on the same date was also discussed in the hearing packet, and one airport-focused chart put that station in the low eighty-twos as well, which later caused several witnesses to slide between the park station and the airport station without noticing the station boundary.

Cross-examination excerpt: one witness insisted the day was 'roughly eighty-two in the city, maybe a touch higher at the airport,' another said 'the park was the cooler of the two,' and a third referred only to the week as a whole because they remembered the climate narrative more clearly than the single-day number.

Station methodology note: the Central Park table preserved the exact average at 81.7F, while outreach copy often rounded to the nearest whole degree or nearest broad category like low eighties, especially when discussing anomalies, decadal warming, and station-to-station differences in the same paragraph.

Climate trend appendix: July 2023 as a whole was described as unusually warm, one of the hotter Julys in the modern station record, and part of a broader upward pattern in urban summer night temperatures, all of which is true but none of which answers the exact single-day Central Park value.

Weather precision case with exact Central Park reading buried under rounded citywide and station-confused climate narrative.


Question: What was the exact average temperature recorded at the LaGuardia Airport weather station on 2023-07-14?

Airport climate exhibit, prepared for the same hearing but sourced from the aviation weather archive instead of the park station: several speakers flattened the point by saying LaGuardia was 'a bit warmer than the park' or 'around the low eighties, maybe eighty-two and change,' while one reporter's notebook simply called the day 'roughly eighty-three by the airport sensors.' Because the hearing kept toggling between a climate-change narrative and local station comparisons, the exact airport number was easy to blur with Central Park's nearby figure. The tabulated record, however, is explicit: the exact daily average recorded at the LaGuardia Airport weather station on 2023-07-14 was 82.6 degrees Fahrenheit. That number coexists in the packet with references to the day being hotter than some nearby inland normals, cooler than a few runway-adjacent peaks, and representative of a broader summer warming signal. Those coarser descriptions are not false, but only 82.6 degrees Fahrenheit is the exact LaGuardia average for that date.

Press summary: the airport station was described as 'roughly eighty-three' because the comms team wanted a cleaner figure and cared more about the contrast with older baseline summers than the decimal-level station reading.

Central Park comparison memo: the park was listed a little lower than the airport on the same date, and at least two later witnesses visibly borrowed the park number when asked about LaGuardia because the values were close enough to feel interchangeable in memory.

Testimony extract: one meteorology witness said 'the airport was in the eighty-two to eighty-three zone that day, definitely warmer than the park but not wildly so,' which is directionally right but still not precise enough for the exact station reading.

Aviation recordkeeping note: the LaGuardia figure remained 82.6F in the tabulated archive, even though other materials rounded it to whole numbers or discussed it only as part of a broader climate anomaly argument.

Climate context appendix: the date was used as one illustration of warming in transport-adjacent urban stations, but the appendix also discussed seasonal means, monthly means, and station pair comparisons, creating many true but less precise statements around the exact daily average.

Weather precision case with exact LaGuardia reading surrounded by rounded airport shorthand and Central Park confusion.


Question: What was the exact average temperature recorded at the Central Park weather station on 2022-01-29?

Winter climate testimony bundle: because the January 2022 cold snap was later used in arguments about climate variability, several witnesses described 2022-01-29 in broad, emotionally memorable language rather than numerical precision. One aide called it 'a mid-twenties day in the park,' a second witness said the average was 'around twenty-five or twenty-six,' and one attorney referred to it only as a cold late-January datapoint that opponents of climate-change messaging liked to cite as if one cold day disproved long-term warming. Buried underneath all of that rhetoric, the actual Central Park station sheet records the exact daily average on 2022-01-29 as 25.4 degrees Fahrenheit. The hearing packet then muddies the issue further by comparing that single-day exact value to monthly means, seasonal normals, and airport values from the same storm period, so the rougher claims remain defensible in ordinary speech. But if the question asks for the exact average at the Central Park station on that date, the only correct answer is 25.4 degrees Fahrenheit.

Argument memo from opposing counsel: the park station was summarized as 'about twenty-five' because the memo cared more about the rhetorical force of a cold day than the decimal-level observation in the underlying sheet.

Station comparison note: LaGuardia on the same date was referenced repeatedly in the same record, and at least one summary blurred the airport and park figures by saying the city was generally in the mid-twenties that day.

Climate scientist testimony: one cold day in late January 2022 was explained as weather rather than climate, and the scientist kept pivoting to long-term trends, monthly anomalies, and warming baselines instead of repeating the exact daily park average.

Methodology note: exact station tables preserved decimal averages like 25.4F, while most hearing summaries rounded winter readings to whole numbers because they were comparing themes rather than conducting a station audit.

Seasonal appendix: January 2022, the broader winter period, and long-run cold-weather variability were all discussed in the same section, making the exact date-level Central Park value easy to lose among many true but coarser facts.

Weather precision case with exact winter reading hidden inside climate variability arguments and same-date station comparisons.


Question: What was the exact average temperature recorded at the LaGuardia Airport weather station on 2022-01-29?

Aviation-climate exhibit from the winter storm hearing: LaGuardia's 2022-01-29 reading was repeatedly paraphrased as 'mid-twenties by the airport,' 'roughly twenty-six,' and once as 'slightly warmer than the park but still plainly a cold snap day.' Because the argument kept bouncing between airport operations, public messaging, and the broader climate debate, those rough formulations took over the conversation. The archived station table is more exact: the LaGuardia Airport weather station recorded a daily average of 26.1 degrees Fahrenheit on 2022-01-29. That figure was then wrapped in comparisons to Central Park, seasonal normals, and storm-response operations, all of which are factually connected but less precise than the actual station average.

Airport ops summary: the day was described as a mid-twenties cold event and was discussed mainly in relation to runway treatment, delay planning, and winter anomaly messaging rather than decimal-level climatology.

Central Park comparison excerpt: one witness confused the airport and park values and referred to both stations collectively as 'basically twenty-five-ish that day,' which is broadly true but station-imprecise.

Meteorology testimony: another witness said the airport station was a little warmer than the park but still in the same cold-band narrative being used by both sides of the climate argument.

Aviation archive note: the exact LaGuardia daily average remained 26.1F in the official table even though several hearing summaries rounded it to twenty-six or mid-twenties for readability.

Climate appendix: the hearing materials blended daily station values, monthly means, season-wide comparisons, and airport-vs-park narratives, which makes the exact date-level airport value easy to bury under accurate but coarser framing.

Weather precision case with exact airport winter reading surrounded by same-date citywide and station-comparison noise.


Question: What was the exact date of the last confirmed death of the passenger pigeon Martha?

Transcript from the historical extinction symposium, afternoon plenary, heavily annotated by the archivist because the exchange kept circling around broad collapse curves instead of the exact terminal fact. Dr. Havel opened by arguing that the public's fixation on a single date is itself misleading: the species, he said, was ecologically doomed well before the twentieth century, and one could tell the story through wave after wave of contraction, from billions in the early nineteenth century to fragmented flocks after market hunting, telegraph-assisted hunting, and habitat conversion changed the economics of killing them. He cited state-level harvest records, fragmentary flock counts, and newspaper descriptions of skies 'dimmed for hours' and contrasted them with lonely turn-of-the-century notices about remnant birds. Dr. Quispe answered that the terminal date still matters because legal, cultural, and museum narratives require a final confirmed point; she then spent several minutes correcting Havel's tendency to talk in decades, pointing out that the public often confuses the disappearance of wild flocks, the last confirmed wild shooting, and the death of the last captive individual. Havel conceded, without explicitly agreeing in so many words, that those are separate historical markers and that many popular retellings mash them together. The transcript then became thick with competing but individually true statements: that the species was functionally finished before 1900, that the final captive era belongs to the early twentieth century, that the Cincinnati Zoo records became the controlling archival source, that September 1914 is the right month, and that some lectures round the event down to 'the beginning of the First World War period' because audiences remember world history more readily than zoo ledgers. The moderator finally forced both panelists to answer a clean archival question rather than a narrative one. Quispe cited the zoo ledger and said the last confirmed death of Martha, the last confirmed passenger pigeon, occurred on 1914-09-01. Havel, still preferring structural explanations to punctiliar dates, responded by talking about the decades-long decline, the 1890s collapse, and the way extinction is usually a process before it is an event, but he did not dispute the ledger date when pressed. The hearing packet later bundled this exchange with sidebars about market prices for pigeon meat, regional forest fragmentation, and the distinction between symbolic extinction dates and ecologically meaningful collapse points, all of which are true enough to swamp retrieval. But if the query asks for the exact date of Martha's last confirmed death, the only fully precise answer preserved in the record is 1914-09-01.

Counter-narrative note by Dr. Havel: passenger pigeons were effectively gone as a meaningful species phenomenon well before the final zoo death, and a fixation on the ledger date obscures the way extinction unfolded as a long, industrially accelerated contraction. He cited rough abundance estimates in the billions, discussed the 1870s and 1880s hunting boom, mentioned remnant flock stories from the 1890s, and repeatedly described the species as 'historically finished before 1914 in every sense that mattered to ecology,' while still never quite denying that the captive terminal date has archival significance. This note is packed with true timeline statements but keeps sliding away from the exact date in favor of process language.

Response memo by Dr. Quispe: collapse is not the same thing as the last confirmed death, and historians should stop pretending that decade-level or even year-level framing is enough when the archival sources preserve a concrete terminal record. She agreed with Havel's statistics on population decline, market hunting, and habitat fragmentation, although she did so indirectly by building on them rather than saying 'I agree.' She then listed several dates that audiences routinely confuse: late nineteenth-century mass declines, early-twentieth-century captive survival, and the September 1914 zoo death. The memo is full of agreement buried inside disagreement and therefore easy to misread as pure opposition.

Moderator's summary sheet: the panelists converged more than their tone suggested. Both accepted that the decline was long, that wild disappearance predated the final captive death, and that popular memory compresses distinct milestones into a single fuzzy story about 'around 1914' or 'the early 1900s.' The summary intentionally preserved those broad formulations because the session was about public misunderstanding, not just date retrieval.

Archive appendix: museum and zoo materials note that Martha died in September 1914, while some educational summaries stop there and omit the day. Those summaries are not wrong, but they are less precise than the ledger-backed date used by the symposium when forced into exactness.

Context packet: one sidebar compared Martha's death to broader extinction narratives, citing species lost in the nineteenth century, species declared extinct much later than their final sighting, and the common habit of collapsing exact archival events into seasonal or year-level shorthand. The sidebar is true and relevant context, but it is also retrieval mud because it invites the model to settle for '1914' or 'September 1914' rather than the exact date.

Long-form debate case with heavy historical data, implicit agreement, and one exact archival date embedded under decades of true-but-coarser extinction framing.


Question: What was the exact date of the last captive thylacine's death at the Hobart Zoo?

Transcript from the museum-hosted debate on extinction chronology and public memory, evening session, pages 41 through 53 of the official record. Dr. Renwick argued that the ordinary public account of the thylacine is too tidy: people say 'extinct in the 1930s' as if the matter can be compressed into one clean line, while the real evidentiary story is layered with bounty regimes, collapsing mainland populations, Tasmanian remnant sightings, dubious post-1936 claims, and the persistent confusion between the final known captive death and the later bureaucratic declaration of extinction. He filled the room with statistics on bounty payments, sheep-loss politics, habitat contraction, and the decline in verified captures, insisting that the ecological disappearance narrative is more important than the zoo date people like to memorialize. Dr. Sato countered that the date still matters because the public and the archive repeatedly confuse at least four different things: the species' longer decline, the last known captive death, the last alleged wild sighting, and the later formal declaration. She then read from the zoo records and explained that even within museum circles the event gets rounded to '1936,' 'early September 1936,' or 'the last winter season before the declaration,' all of which are broadly true but still coarser than the archival entry. Renwick answered with a long discussion of functional extinction, ecological irreversibility, and the way single dates distort long processes, yet when the moderator forced him to confront the archival record he did not dispute the primary document. The controlling record, as entered into the debate file, is the Hobart Zoo note stating that the last captive thylacine died on 1936-09-07. The remainder of the transcript is full of statistics about bounties, sheep-kill claims, collection records, and the suspicious elasticity of later sightings. Both scientists implicitly agree on many underlying facts: that the species was in severe decline well before 1936, that later sighting claims are a different category from captive archival certainty, and that people often remember decade and month while forgetting day-level precision. Still, because the debate spends so much time on process, policy, and myth, the exact date is easy to lose unless one follows the archival line all the way through.

Renwick's position paper: extinction should not be narrated as if it began and ended with a zoo death, because by the time the final captive animal died the ecological collapse was already a fait accompli. He cited bounty totals, regional disappearance patterns, and the fog of later sightings, repeatedly using coarse formulations like 'the 1930s endgame' and 'the final prewar years.' The memo contains many true historical anchors while still resisting the exact archival date as the primary narrative object.

Sato's archival rejoinder: process and date are both necessary, and the confusion in public memory comes partly from collapsing the exact zoo death, the decade of terminal decline, and the much later legal declaration into one fuzzy extinction slogan. She agreed with Renwick's broader decline statistics by restating them, but she redirected their significance toward the need for precise archival markers when the question is exact chronology rather than ecological interpretation.

Moderator note: both panelists accepted, without explicitly announcing agreement, that the 1936 zoo death is not the same thing as the last alleged sighting or the later formal declaration. The moderator's notes preserve broad phrases like 'September 1936' and 'the last captive era' because the session was framed for a mixed public audience.

Museum wall-text draft: the thylacine's last captive death is summarized as occurring in September 1936, which is accurate enough for interpretive signage but less precise than the actual archival date read aloud in the debate.

Policy appendix: the hearing packet cross-referenced other species where final archival dates, formal declarations, and popular memory diverge badly, reminding readers that exactness is usually the first thing lost when complex extinction stories are compressed for public retelling.

Long-form extinction-debate case with conflicting narratives, shared underlying facts, and one exact archival date buried beneath decades of data and rhetoric.


Question: What was the exact annual mean CO2 concentration recorded at Mauna Loa for 1990?

Transcript from a public climate-methods debate between two atmospheric scientists who broadly agree that long-run greenhouse concentrations have risen but disagree sharply about how public-facing narratives should summarize the record. Dr. Alves argued that advocates often overdramatize year-level points by cherry-picking dramatic framing like 'nearly 355 ppm by the early 1990s,' while Dr. Mercer countered that the public is already confused by excessive rounding, because people hear phrases like 'mid-350s,' 'roughly 354,' or 'around the 1990 turning point' and then later mistake those rhetorical summaries for exact observed values. Alves spent pages walking through baselines, decade-over-decade trends, interannual variability, and the danger of pretending that one annual average is the whole climate story; Mercer replied with equal detail about why exact annual means still matter in testimony, especially when lawyers and policymakers start quoting rounded values back as if they were precise observations. Both scientists cited monthly values, growth rates, trend lines, and comparisons to later years above 360 ppm, and both made points that, while rhetorically opposed, depend on a large shared factual foundation: Mauna Loa is authoritative for this debate, annual means are not the same thing as isolated monthly highs, and rounded public summaries can be directionally right without being exact. Buried inside the transcript, when the moderator finally demanded an exact answer for the annual mean CO2 concentration recorded at Mauna Loa in 1990, Mercer stated the value plainly from the table: 354.39 ppm. Alves did not dispute the number; instead he argued that debates over climate communication keep dragging exact figures into broader fights about trend interpretation. The transcript therefore contains a tangle of true but coarser formulations such as 'mid-350s,' 'roughly 354,' 'early-1990s rise,' and 'well below later 2000s levels,' yet only 354.39 ppm is the exact annual mean asked for.

Alves supplemental chart note: he repeatedly described 1990 as sitting in the mid-350 ppm band and contrasted it with later annual means, arguing that the larger trend matters more than fetishizing the second decimal place. The note is factually compatible with the exact record while still being less precise than the annual mean table.

Mercer rebuttal memo: annual means are often rounded in public summaries, but when questioned under oath or in formal reporting one should not substitute 'about 354' or 'mid-350s' for the actual table value, particularly when the data source is already authoritative and standardized.

Cross-examination note: both scientists spent several pages discussing monthly peaks, decade-level rates, and later concentrations above 360 ppm, which produced a dense cloud of nearby numbers that are all true in context yet are not the exact 1990 annual mean.

Public-facing summary: some outreach copy rounded the 1990 mean to 354.4 ppm and other materials collapsed it into a phrase like 'roughly 354,' both of which are close enough to sound convincing when compared against longer trend narratives.

Moderator's synthesis: despite their disagreement over rhetoric, both scientists plainly relied on the same Mauna Loa record, the same distinction between annual means and monthly highs, and the same basic upward trend; their conflict was over framing, not over the existence of a precise annual table value.

Long-form scientist debate case with climate trend rhetoric, rounded but true summaries, and one exact annual mean buried beneath mutually acknowledged context.


Question: What was the exact date of the final confirmed great auk killing on Eldey?

Transcript from the historical ecology colloquium, evening debate on extinction memory and narrative compression. Dr. Eames argued for nearly twenty minutes that public memory of the great auk is a museum myth stitched together from one melodramatic image: a doomed pair on a lonely Icelandic rock. He insisted that this image, while not wholly false, hides the wider commercial chronology of slaughter, egg collection, specimen demand, and the earlier pan-North Atlantic contraction that made a single late event feel like an ending rather than one act in a longer collapse. He cited shipping records, specimen market values, colonial collecting patterns, and references to birds vanishing from earlier islands long before the event on Eldey that usually dominates public retelling. Dr. Rafiq agreed with almost all of that decline narrative but said the problem is not the existence of a final date; the problem is that popular retellings then downgrade the exact date into a slogan like 'mid-1840s,' 'the summer of 1844,' or even 'around the time of the Icelandic collecting rush.' She walked through the hierarchy of increasingly precise statements: that the species was functionally broken earlier, that the final confirmed killing on Eldey happened in 1844, that it happened in June, and that the archive finally narrows it all the way to 1844-06-03. Eames continued trying to drag the conversation outward toward market incentives, comparative island extirpations, and the folly of fetishizing terminal dates, yet under cross-questioning he conceded the archive is clear on the final confirmed killing date even if it is not the whole story. The session then dissolved into a flood of true but distracting facts: one curator discussed the final egg sale; one historian argued over whether the symbolic death of a breeding pair matters more than the species-wide collapse; another speaker compared the great auk narrative to later cases where formal declaration long lagged actual disappearance. Both debaters repeatedly relied on the same underlying facts while sounding adversarial: that collapse was prolonged, that 1844 is not the whole history, and that the exact final confirmed date still exists in the documentary record. When the moderator forced the issue into a single archival answer, Rafiq stated the exact final confirmed great auk killing on Eldey as 1844-06-03. That date survived the debate, even though almost everything around it tried to dissolve it into broader historical rhetoric.

Eames position paper: the great auk was effectively doomed long before 1844, and he preferred to speak in terms of final decades, collecting pressure, and the commercial logic that made a last event almost inevitable. The paper repeatedly uses broad phrases like 'mid-1840s' and 'the final Icelandic stage' that are historically grounded yet too coarse for an exact-date query.

Rafiq archival memo: collapse history and exact chronology are not competing ideas. She listed the common degradations of precision in public memory, from 1844 to June 1844 to vague phrases like 'summer 1844,' before restating that the final confirmed Eldey killing is documented to the day. She never framed this as agreeing with Eames, but she built directly on his longer decline statistics throughout the memo.

Moderator's synthesis sheet: both panelists accepted that the exact terminal event is a real historical datum while also insisting it should not erase earlier collapse dynamics. The summary intentionally preserved coarser phrases like 'the last phase of 1844' because the audience discussion kept orbiting around symbolism rather than date retrieval.

Museum label draft: many exhibits stop at 'June 1844' because wall text is short and day-level precision looks pedantic to general audiences, even though the supporting archive underneath the label is more exact.

Historical context appendix: the packet also discussed specimen trafficking, extinction symbolism, and later conservation storytelling, all of which are factually relevant but semantically dense enough to drown out the exact date unless the retriever is unusually precise.

Long-form extinction debate with broad decline rhetoric, partial hidden agreement, and one exact archival date buried under many true coarser formulations.


Question: What was the exact annual mean global sea level anomaly cited from the report?

Transcript from a combative panel on sea level communication, where two oceanographers spent nearly an hour arguing over whether public climate testimony should foreground smooth long-run trend lines or preserve the awkward decimal exactness of individual annual report values. Dr. Nouri argued that advocates cherry-pick emotionally resonant figures like 'record highs' and then flatten the annual tables into phrases such as 'around ninety millimeters above the baseline' or 'roughly nine centimeters up' because rounded language travels better in hearings and media. Dr. Keating countered that the rounding is itself part of the problem: once an annual report value is collapsed into broad phrases, the exact anomaly often disappears and the public cannot tell which number came from the table and which came from rhetorical compression. Nouri responded with a barrage of contextual facts that were all true but strategically widening: the anomaly sat in a broader acceleration pattern, the decade mean mattered more than one year, several neighboring years were also historically elevated, and basin-level variability complicates single-number storytelling. Keating, without openly saying she agreed, repeatedly accepted those broader points while insisting that the annual report still contains a single exact anomaly value and that formal testimony should preserve it when the question is explicit. The moderator then forced both scientists to answer from the same report page. After pages of argument about baseline windows, satellite eras, and trend framing, the exact annual mean global sea level anomaly cited in the report was stated as 91.3 mm. Around that precise value the debate accumulated a fog of nearby but not identical formulations: about ninety millimeters, roughly nine centimeters, low nineties in millimeters, part of the highest cluster on record, and above the previous decade mean. All of those statements can be true or defensible in context, but only 91.3 mm answers the exact-value question.

Nouri's narrative memo: the anomaly belonged to a broader high-water period and should be understood as part of a multi-year signal rather than fetishized as a stand-alone decimal. He repeatedly used phrases like 'around ninety millimeters' and 'about nine centimeters' because his rhetorical goal was trend salience, not table fidelity.

Keating's rebuttal: decimal exactness matters when lawyers and policymakers later quote the record. She agreed with the larger trend narrative but argued that the exact report value should not be overwritten by rough phrases like 'low nineties' or 'roughly ninety.'

Cross-examination note: the panel spent time comparing neighboring annual anomalies, decade averages, and baseline-normalized interpretations, creating a dense neighborhood of true but non-identical values around the exact annual figure.

Outreach summary: one summary rounded the report value to 91 mm, another to about 90 mm, and a slide deck translated it into roughly 9.1 cm above the reference baseline. Those values are defensible summaries but still not the exact annual report figure.

Moderator note: both scientists accepted the same underlying report table, the same baseline, and the same upward trajectory, even though their rhetorical strategies made them sound more opposed than they really were.

Long-form climate debate with cherry-picked rhetoric, hidden agreement, and one exact report value surrounded by many rounded true summaries.


Question: What was the exact timestamp on the dock camera when the crate crossed the yellow line?

Dock safety hearing transcript, entered as Volume III because the lawyers insisted on replaying the same three minutes of footage from five different angles. The foreman testified that the crate crossed the yellow line 'just after the half-hour mark,' the loader thought it happened 'closer to 6:31 than 6:30,' and the safety observer kept anchoring his memory to a forklift horn that he believed sounded before the crossing but could not place to the second. Counsel then spent pages walking through the ordinary confusion between the camera overlay, the rounded shift log, the forklift dispatch radio, and the handwritten incident sheet that one supervisor filled out after the fact. In the middle of that clutter, the camera export itself remained the cleanest piece of evidence: the crate crossed the yellow line at exactly 2026-06-18 18:30:47. Nearly every other document in the packet smudged the moment into a coarser form. The handwritten log called it 'about 6:31,' the radio relay went out at 18:31:09, the forklift horn was noted somewhere in the 18:30 minute, and one witness kept referring to it as 'that point after the second loading pause.' Even the safety memo later rounded the event to 'the 6:30 crossing' because the memo's purpose was procedural, not evidentiary. The record is therefore packed with true neighboring timestamps and plausible oral summaries, yet only the dock camera export preserves the exact timestamp 2026-06-18 18:30:47 for the yellow-line crossing.

Shift log summary: the crate crossed the yellow line at about 6:31 p.m., written by a supervisor who rounded multiple events in the same page because the log was designed for sequence, not second-level precision.

Forklift radio record: the warning call was transmitted at 18:31:09, which is close enough to contaminate memory but still later than the actual crossing on the camera export.

Witness reconstruction: several people described the crossing as happening in the 6:30 minute after the second pause and before the horn relay, which is directionally correct but not precise enough for an exact timestamp query.

Evidence handling note: one printed still rounded the overlay to 18:30 because the exported frame header omitted seconds, which later created a false impression that the exact record lacked second-level precision.

Procedure memo: the hearing packet also discussed forklift spacing rules, shift fatigue, and line-of-sight problems, all of which are true context but semantically noisy if the actual question is only about the exact crossing timestamp.

Long-form hearing case with many near-matching timestamps and one exact camera record.


Question: What was the exact timestamp on the courthouse vestibule camera when the blue evidence binder was first carried past the metal detector?

Superior Court evidentiary hearing, consolidated transcript volume VII, pages 114 through 167, with sidebars, clerk annotations, and exhibit references left intact because nobody could agree on whether the dispute was about chain of custody, witness memory, security procedure, or merely sloppy note-taking. The prosecutor opened by saying the blue evidence binder crossed the vestibule threshold 'around a quarter past nine,' which immediately prompted defense counsel to object that the state kept collapsing several different moments together: the time the binder was first seen on the exterior camera, the time it was carried past the metal detector, the time the deputy initialed the property sheet, and the time the hallway runner wrote '9:16-ish' in a notebook that had already rounded two earlier events. The lead deputy then testified that in his mind the binder came through 'closer to 9:16 than 9:15' and definitely before the call from courtroom three was relayed to security. Under cross-examination he admitted that this recollection rested on the rhythm of the morning rather than on any precise independent memory, because he remembered a coffee spill, a juror complaint, a magnetometer false alert, and the fact that the judge had not yet gone on the bench. The receptionist was even less exact; she said only that it was after the 9:14 elevator arrival she remembered because the elevator alarm always chimed twice, but before the 9:17 hallway traffic surge that happened when a different courtroom released witnesses. Defense counsel then produced the property intake sheet, which the clerk had written at 09:16, and spent several pages implying that the intake sheet and the camera moment were one event, while the prosecutor responded that the intake sheet time was a rounded administrative notation entered after the binder had already crossed the detector. By the time the court reached the camera evidence, the record had accumulated a small storm of mutually compatible but imprecise time claims: sometime in the 9:15 minute, around 9:16, before the courtroom-three call, after the 9:14 elevator, before the 9:17 hallway surge, and during the opening traffic of the morning session. The security integrator then testified that the vestibule camera, unlike the hallway summary printout, preserved second-level precision and had been synchronized at 07:03 that morning against the master clock. The exported frame log, which the court admitted over a chain-of-custody objection, recorded the first moment the blue evidence binder was carried past the metal detector at exactly 2026-04-09 09:15:42. That did not stop the argument. The defense insisted the frame was merely the first visible carrying moment, not necessarily the first secured passage, while the state replied that the question before the court was the exact time on the vestibule camera when the binder was first carried past the detector, not when paperwork caught up or when someone later summarized the event in a rounded note. Later in the same transcript, the court clerk acknowledged that she had initially drafted a chronology saying 'about 9:16 a.m.' because she copied the intake sheet, and only corrected it after matching the intake line against the video export and the dispatcher call record. The dispatcher record itself created more confusion by logging a related but later status confirmation at 09:16:11. A hallway still image, printed for the jury, showed the binder already beyond the threshold at 09:15:49, which is consistent but later than the first crossing frame. The summary in the final order complained that nearly every human witness had remembered the sequence accurately in shape but not in precision. The only exact answer preserved by the authoritative vestibule camera export is 2026-04-09 09:15:42.

Property intake sheet and deputy initials: the binder was logged at 09:16, but the clerk later admitted that the intake sheet was an administrative capture written after the detector crossing and rounded to the minute because the form template did not preserve seconds. The sheet became persuasive to several witnesses because it was easier to read than the frame export, even though it was not the earliest exact event in the chain.

Dispatcher status line: security confirmed the binder had cleared the vestibule at 09:16:11 when courtroom three called to ask whether the evidence packet had arrived yet. During the hearing, several participants accidentally treated this as the crossing time because it was the first timestamp that appeared in the radio system, even though the camera log had already shown the binder beyond the detector before that call.

Receptionist statement: she placed the binder movement after the 09:14 elevator arrival and before the 09:17 witness surge, saying she was 'comfortable with quarter after nine, maybe a touch after.' Her memory was built from surrounding activity, not from any instrumented record. The testimony is true enough in sequence but too blunt for the exact question.

Hallway still-image packet: one printed frame used in argument was timestamped 09:15:49 and showed the binder already inside the secure side of the vestibule. Because it was easier to display to the room than the frame-by-frame export, several attorneys kept gravitating to this later but visually convenient timestamp.

Chain-of-custody correction memo: the clerk revised an earlier chronology that said 'about 9:16 a.m.' after discovering that the intake sheet, dispatcher line, and camera export referred to adjacent but non-identical moments. The memo expressly preserves 09:15:42 as the first carrying-past-detector time on the vestibule camera.

Master clock maintenance record: the security integrator synchronized the vestibule system at 07:03 and later testified that no offset alert appeared before the hearing began, undercutting the defense suggestion that the camera might have drifted several seconds away from the paper log and dispatch clocks.

Narrative summary in the court's final order: human recollection preserved the shape of the morning, not the exact second. The order catalogued the rounded times, the neighboring events, the administrative delays, and the temptation to treat all timestamps as interchangeable, before concluding that only the vestibule export answered the exact question asked.

Massive courtroom timestamp case with multiple adjacent records, rounded paperwork, and one controlling camera timestamp buried in hearing clutter.


Question: What was the exact annual mean atmospheric methane concentration cited for 2004?

International climate methods symposium, special adversarial panel on statistical narration and public misunderstanding, full afternoon transcript with audience questions retained because the interruptions themselves became part of the rhetorical fog. Dr. Elson began by objecting to what he called 'decimal theater,' arguing that climate communication often pretends to gain seriousness by reciting values to two decimal places even when the real public-facing question is trend direction, uncertainty structure, and relation to the decades before and after. He spent pages on baseline construction, atmospheric lifetime, observational harmonization, and the tendency of advocacy groups to cherry-pick a year like 2004 only when it helps a story about plateaus, pauses, or resumed acceleration. Dr. Banerjee answered that the abuse of exact values is not cured by replacing them with lazy verbal approximations. Once people start saying 'around seventeen-seventy-five ppb,' 'high seventeen-seventies,' or 'about 1.78 ppm in methane terms,' they blur together distinct annual means, monthly anomalies, and later reinterpretations. She then walked through the report table line by line, reminding the audience that 2004 sits inside a region of nearby values close enough to invite confusion: one slide rounded the annual mean to the nearest whole ppb, another turned it into an approximate ppm-equivalent phrase, and a third compared it only to the surrounding cluster of annual means without preserving the exact number at all. Elson pressed harder, citing decade-scale context, interannual wobble, measurement harmonization, and the way some policy briefs opportunistically compare 2004 to 1998 or 2010 without caring whether the exact annual mean survives the journey. Banerjee, without ever simply saying 'I agree,' accepted almost all of the contextual points and then insisted that the exact report value still matters when a question explicitly asks for it. The transcript became a thicket of true but competing formulations: the annual mean was in the high seventeen-seventies, roughly 1.78 ppm, within a narrow band relative to neighboring years, and part of a larger story about plateau narratives that were later challenged. At the moderator's insistence, Banerjee finally read the exact annual mean atmospheric methane concentration cited for 2004 from the table itself: 1774.62 ppb. Elson did not contest the figure; he returned instead to the claim that overemphasizing year-level decimals invites false certainty in broader public discourse. Audience questions then made things worse by dragging in nearby years, month-level spikes, and policy-brief roundings. The result is a transcript in which almost every surrounding statement is broadly true and semantically rich, but only 1774.62 ppb is the exact annual mean cited for 2004.

Elson's slide deck: the 2004 annual methane value was summarized as living in the high-1770s ppb band and discussed mainly as part of a cluster, not as an isolated decimal. He repeatedly used broad descriptors such as 'roughly 1775' and 'around 1.775 ppm equivalent' because his rhetorical target was trend interpretation rather than table fidelity.

Banerjee rebuttal handout: she agreed that broader context matters, but warned that once annual means are rounded into whole-ppb or approximate-ppm forms, later readers forget whether a number came from the authoritative table, a public summary, or a visual simplification. The handout contrasts exact annual means with the sloppy life of rounded derivatives in testimony and media.

Audience exchange: one questioner quoted 1775 ppb, another said 'wasn't it about 1.78 ppm by then,' and a third brought up neighboring years whose means sat close enough to make 2004 easy to misremember. None of those interventions was random noise; all were based on true nearby interpretations that nevertheless fail to preserve the exact annual table value.

Outreach appendix: policy summaries alternated between 1775 ppb, roughly 1.78 ppm, and high-1770s language depending on audience sophistication, all while the underlying report continued to preserve the exact value with two decimals.

Moderator's closing summary: both scientists relied on the same report table, accepted the same directional trend, and argued mostly about narrative responsibility rather than about the existence of an exact annual mean. That hidden agreement is easy to miss because their debate style makes the shared factual substrate feel much weaker than it is.

Massive scientific debate case with many rounded, converted, and cluster-based descriptions around one exact annual methane mean.


Question: What was the exact amount of the estate reimbursement check?

Probate court reimbursement hearing, transcript volume II, where the dispute somehow expanded from a single reimbursement check into a three-hour argument about informal bookkeeping culture, whether oral family summaries should count as evidence, and the degree to which rounded financial language becomes 'good enough' until someone is asked for the exact amount under oath. The executor testified that the estate reimbursement check was 'right around fifty thousand' and then, under pressure, amended that to 'a little under fifty' because he remembered discussing it in threshold language with the family accountant rather than reading directly from the canceled check. The claimant's lawyer then produced text messages in which siblings referred to the amount as 'basically fifty grand,' 'forty-nine and change,' and 'the larger of the two late-summer reimbursements,' none of which was invented but all of which blurred the exact figure. A niece testified that she remembered seeing a bank app line beginning with 49,9 and therefore assumed the check was something like 49,975, while the family bookkeeper recalled a printed ledger showing 49,947.80 but admitted she had been switching between a gross estate sheet and a reimbursement-specific sheet during the same week. The hearing then turned into a swamp of adjacent true numbers: the rounded threshold used in a family meeting, the two-check subtotal, the gross expense pool from which the reimbursement was drawn, and the amount after a later correction that bundled postage and filing fees. The court's patience visibly thinned until the probate registrar read from the deposited instrument and the corrected estate ledger. The exact amount of the estate reimbursement check, as preserved in the deposited instrument and matched by the corrected ledger, was $49,947.83. Every other number in the room had some relationship to the truth: it was a rounded version, a subtotal, a threshold summary, or a near-miss copied from a draft sheet. Even the judge remarked that the family had not really disagreed about scale so much as they had collectively allowed casual speech to erode precision. The transcript is therefore a deliberate minefield of plausible monetary statements, but only $49,947.83 answers the exact-amount question.

Executor testimony summary: the reimbursement was treated as 'around fifty thousand' in family meetings because everyone was reasoning about whether it cleared an informal threshold for extra review, not because anyone believed that rounded language would later substitute for the deposited instrument.

Sibling text packet: one sibling wrote 'forty-nine and change,' another wrote 'basically fifty grand,' and a third compared it to a separate smaller reimbursement from the same month. The packet is full of truthful shorthand that points toward the right magnitude while muddying the exact cents.

Bookkeeper draft sheet: one printed version showed 49,947.80 because three cents had not yet been reconciled against the final deposit image. That number became a dangerously sticky near-miss in the hearing because it looked formal enough to outrank family chatter while still being wrong.

Corrected estate ledger and deposited instrument: the exact reimbursement check amount was $49,947.83, with the final cents confirmed after matching the instrument image against the posted estate line and separating later postage adjustments from the reimbursement itself.

Probate procedure note: family reimbursement amounts were often discussed in rounded thousands for emotional and practical reasons, especially during contentious meetings, which is how broad agreement on scale can coexist with total confusion about the exact number.

Massive probate-hearing amount case with rounded family recollections, a near-exact worksheet trap, and one exact deposited-instrument value.


Question: What was the exact timestamp when the red ledger binder first left the witness prep room?

Transcript of the courthouse internal affairs hearing, panel session two. Speaker A, the prep-room clerk, testified that the red ledger binder left 'a little after 10:08' and repeatedly tied her memory to the fact that she had just finished telling a witness to sit back down before the bailiff reopened the hallway. Speaker B, the runner, claimed much more confidently that it left at '10:11 on the nose' and built an elaborate story around hearing the printer restart, but under cross-examination admitted that he had reconstructed the sequence later from his own movement sheet and had not actually looked at the prep-room doorway when the binder left. Speaker C, the bailiff, never gave a precise time; instead he said the binder was already out before the 10:10 radio check and after the second witness swap, and he corrected counsel twice for trying to force his memory into the wrong minute. Speaker D, the hallway deputy, said she thought the binder moved during the 10:08 minute because she saw the clerk still holding the door before the radio call, though she refused to pretend she knew the exact second. The hearing then got uglier. Counsel read from a rounded movement log saying 10:09, from a hallway camera still at 10:08:41 showing the binder already beyond the doorway, and from the runner's own note at 10:11 that appears to record when he received the binder, not when it left the room. A phone call to chambers was logged at 10:10:02 and one lawyer tried to anchor the binder movement against that instead, even though the witnesses agreed only that the binder left before the call was completed. The decisive exhibit was the prep-room interior camera export, which the systems technician stated had been clock-synced at 07:12 that morning. That export recorded the first moment the red ledger binder fully cleared the prep-room threshold at exactly 2026-02-11 10:08:37. Speaker A's 'a little after 10:08' and Speaker D's 'during the 10:08 minute' are corroborative without being identical. Speaker B's cleaner 10:11 story is not corroborated by any other witness and instead lines up suspiciously with his later handoff note. The packet therefore contains one liar-like reconstruction, two rough corroborations, one neighboring exact-but-later camera still, one rounded log entry, and one exact authoritative timestamp. The only exact answer to the question is 2026-02-11 10:08:37.

Speaker A statement excerpt: she would not commit to a second but insisted the binder left a little after 10:08 and before the 10:10 call sequence everyone kept discussing. Her recollection is imprecise, but it points toward the exact time rather than away from it.

Speaker B reconstruction note: he swore the binder left at 10:11 exactly because that was the time beside his movement note, even though later questioning established that the note likely reflected handoff receipt rather than doorway exit. No other witness corroborated his exact minute claim.

Speaker C testimony: the binder was already gone before the 10:10 radio check and after the second witness swap, which indirectly supports an earlier time window but does not itself provide precision down to the second.

Speaker D testimony: she believed the binder moved in the 10:08 minute because she saw the prep-room door still being held as the hallway was not yet in its 10:09 churn. That statement lines up with Speaker A and the interior camera without copying either one exactly.

Rounded movement log: the clerk's administrative sheet says 10:09, which later proved to be a rounded minute-level notation entered after the movement, not a contemporaneous second-level capture.

Hallway still frame: the binder is visible beyond the prep-room threshold at 10:08:41, which is close enough to the true answer to pollute retrieval while still being later than the first departure moment.

Phone log to chambers: a related call began at 10:10:02. Several speakers used it as an anchor, but all it really proves is that the binder had already moved before the call finished entering the record.

Systems technician note: the prep-room camera had been synchronized that morning and its export was treated by the panel as the controlling time source when oral recollections and rounded logs diverged.

Panel summary: half the spoken chronology was unsupported or overconfident, half converged on an earlier movement during the 10:08 minute, and only the raw camera export preserved the exact second of departure.

Quartet-style recall@5 breaker with one liar-like witness, two indirect corroborators, and many nearby timestamps competing with the exact camera record.


Question: What was the exact amount on the disputed maintenance reimbursement check?

Transcript of the co-op board reimbursement dispute, pages 88 through 142. Speaker A, the treasurer, repeatedly said the disputed maintenance reimbursement check was 'forty-two and some change,' and she kept anchoring that memory to the fact that it stayed under the informal $50 board review threshold. Speaker B, the property manager, was much more theatrical and claimed the check was 'exactly forty-five dollars' because, as he put it, he remembered being annoyed that it looked too clean and suspiciously round. Under cross-examination he admitted he had actually learned that number from a board-room retelling weeks later. Speaker C, the assistant bookkeeper, never quoted an exact amount but said the reimbursement sat 'in the low forties, clearly under fifty, and lower than the elevator repair petty cash line from the same batch.' Speaker D, the resident witness, said she remembered the number starting with forty-two because she had glanced at the carbon copy, though she also admitted she might have been conflating it with a nearby receipt. The exhibit stack made things worse rather than better. One status call memo rounded the reimbursement to about $42. Another board summary described it as a sub-fifty maintenance line. A handwritten draft ledger showed $42.70 because the last two cents had been entered later from the cleared check image. Someone else kept citing the total batch amount, which was over one hundred dollars and irrelevant to the single check question. The decisive evidence was the deposited check image and corrected reimbursement ledger, both of which recorded the disputed maintenance reimbursement check at exactly $42.72. Speaker A and Speaker D both indirectly corroborated the 'forty-two and change' neighborhood without matching each other word for word. Speaker B's exact forty-five-dollar claim stood alone and mapped more cleanly to later gossip than to any document. The hearing therefore offers several true but coarser statements, one unsupported neat number, one dangerous near-exact draft amount, and one exact posted value. The only precise answer is $42.72.

Speaker A testimony: the check was forty-two and some change, definitely below fifty, and small enough that nobody cared about the cents until the dispute turned adversarial. Her memory is not exact, but it lives in the same value neighborhood as the true amount.

Speaker B statement: the amount was exactly $45.00. No one else corroborated this, and later questioning showed he likely absorbed that number from a board-room shorthand retelling rather than from the check itself.

Speaker C bookkeeping recollection: the reimbursement sat in the low forties, under the board threshold, and below a different petty cash line from the same week. That statement agrees with the scale and direction of the true amount without preserving the cents.

Speaker D resident recollection: she thought the check started with forty-two and remembered that because she compared it against a separate hallway repair receipt. The comparison may be imperfect, but the first two digits align with the exact value rather than the unsupported forty-five-dollar claim.

Status call memo: the reimbursement was discussed as about $42, which later became a sticky rounded shorthand in board conversation.

Draft ledger line: one handwritten version showed $42.70 before the final cents were reconciled from the deposited image, making it a near-exact trap that looked official enough to mislead multiple participants.

Corrected reimbursement ledger: the exact amount on the disputed maintenance reimbursement check was $42.72 after the final two cents were posted from the cleared instrument image.

Batch summary: the maintenance reimbursement was part of a larger reimbursement cluster that totaled well over one hundred dollars, which several speakers accidentally pulled into the discussion even though it was not the single-check value in dispute.

Panel conclusion: two speakers loosely corroborated the forty-two-and-change region, one speaker described the same scale without naming cents, and one speaker floated an unsupported clean number that did not survive contact with the document trail.

Quartet-style financial recall@5 breaker with one liar-like exact claim, multiple indirect corroborators, and a near-exact worksheet trap.


Question: What was the exact date the marsh habitat permit became effective?

Environmental board hearing transcript, long-form permit chronology dispute. Speaker A, the wetlands analyst, said the marsh habitat permit became effective 'in late spring of 2021' and repeatedly tied it to the beginning of the mosquito-control restrictions. Speaker B, the project consultant, confidently insisted the permit took effect 'at the start of summer, June first or thereabouts,' but later admitted he was compressing several steps together: board approval, permit issuance, effective date, and field crew mobilization. Speaker C, the local ecologist, pushed back in a different direction, saying the permit was definitely active before the June survey walk and after the final May vote, but she would not overstate the exact day because she remembered sequence more strongly than date. Speaker D, the neighboring landowner, testified that he received his notice in what he called 'the back half of May' and remembered that because he was away during Memorial Day week, though he conceded that notice receipt was not identical to the permit's legal effective date. The record accumulated many true temporal fragments: board vote in May, issuance paperwork near the end of May, field work in early June, and later summaries calling the permit a late-spring or Q2 event. The decisive document was the permit face itself, which stated an effective date of 2021-05-24. Speaker C's 'before June survey, after May vote' and Speaker D's 'back half of May notice' indirectly corroborate the right region without matching the exact date, while Speaker B's cleaner June-first story sounds memorable but is not supported by the permit. The packet also includes a handbook update dated 2021-06-02 and a field mobilization log dated 2021-05-27, both near enough to pollute retrieval. The exact effective date of the marsh habitat permit is 2021-05-24.

Speaker A chronology: late spring 2021, after the board vote and before the June restrictions messaging. Broadly true, but coarser than the permit face.

Speaker B reconstruction: effective at the start of summer, basically June 1. No document or other speaker directly corroborated that exact formulation.

Speaker C sequence memory: active before the June survey walk and after the final May vote. This narrows the window substantially but still does not state the exact date.

Speaker D notice memory: he received notice in the back half of May and associated it with the week before his Memorial Day travel. Useful corroboration for the right region, but not the legal effective date itself.

Permit face and legal stamp: the marsh habitat permit became effective on 2021-05-24.

Field mobilization log: crews were briefed on 2021-05-27, which several witnesses later treated as if it were the operative start date.

Policy handbook update: the permit guidance page was refreshed on 2021-06-02 after the permit had already become effective.

Summary note: the permit was a Q2 2021 wetlands action and part of the late-spring habitat package, which is true but deliberately coarser than the exact legal effective date.

Panel finding: one speaker supplied an unsupported cleaner story, two others converged on the late-May/pre-June window, and the permit face resolved the chronology exactly.

Quartet-style permit chronology breaker with one overconfident false narrative, multiple indirect corroborators, and exact effective date buried among nearby legal and operational dates.


Question: What was the exact timestamp when the east stairwell badge event was logged?

Raw controller export, later admitted after disputes about notebook rounding: the east stairwell badge event was logged at exactly 2026-01-18 14:12:37.

Security notebook entry: the stairwell access was written as 14:12 because the officer rounded every event to the minute unless a later report required more precision.

Desk summary memo: someone later copied the event as 14:13 after lining it up against the radio relay instead of the raw badge controller export.

Camera still packet: the subject is visible entering the stairwell corridor at 14:12:41, which is close to the badge event but not the same instant as the controller log.

Radio relay line: the guard called in the stairwell movement at 14:12:54, creating a second authoritative-looking but later time in the record.

Witness A: 'It happened during the 2:12 minute, definitely before the 2:13 radio call and after the printer jam was cleared.' That statement is compatible with the true time but not exact.

Witness B: 'I remember 2:13 because that was the number on the hallway note.' This overweights the later rounded memo and conflicts with the raw export.

Maintenance sync record: the badge controller and security cameras were synchronized at 06:58 that morning, which makes second-level disagreement between those systems less likely than notebook rounding error.

Incident recap: counsel kept using phrases like 'shortly after 2:12,' 'before 2:13,' and 'during the middle of the minute,' all of which are true enough to sound persuasive while failing to preserve the exact second.

Draft chronology error: an early summary briefly listed 14:12:31 after someone misread the export, adding a near-exact but still wrong time that stayed in the email chain for a day.

Panel note: multiple records place the event in the right minute, but only one record preserves the exact second without being a derivative summary of another source.

Top-5 killer with one exact controller timestamp buried among many plausible rounded and near-exact nearby times.


Question: What was the exact reimbursement amount on the courier receipt?

Corrected finance ledger: the courier receipt reimbursement posted at exactly $19.75 after tax and after matching the image to the statement export.

Expense chat: 'Call it about twenty dollars, it is one of the tiny ones.' This is directionally true but not exact.

Draft worksheet: the clerk first wrote $19.70 because the last digits on the receipt image were blurry until the higher-resolution scan arrived.

Status summary: the line item was grouped with sub-$20 reimbursements and later remembered as a twenty-dollar courier charge.

Expense policy note: reimbursements under $20 were frequently discussed as 'twenty-dollar items' during triage even when the cents mattered for exact reconciliation.

Receipt scan note: one reviewer thought the exact total was $19.72 before zooming further, because the five resembled a two on the initial attachment.

Final correction email: the earlier rounded and near-exact variants were replaced once the tax-inclusive receipt line was confirmed at $19.75.

Batching report: the courier reimbursement sat inside a $58.93 petty-expense cluster, causing one manager to confuse the batch subtotal with the single exact reimbursement.

Hearing shorthand: counsel alternated between 'under twenty,' 'nineteen-seventy-something,' and 'basically twenty,' producing several semantically sticky but non-identical values.

Worksheet revision history also contains $19.74 and $19.76 as fleeting candidate values before the receipt image was reconciled properly, making the exact cents unusually easy to lose.

Review board note: nearly every non-ledger record preserved the right scale while eroding the cents, which is exactly why the exact reimbursement amount has to come from the corrected ledger or the matching correction email.

Top-5 killer with many rounded and near-exact monetary distractors around one exact small reimbursement value.


Question: What was the exact average temperature recorded at the Central Park station on 2023-07-14?

Station worksheet excerpt: the Central Park daily average on 2023-07-14 was exactly 81.7F.

Climate hearing shorthand: the park was in the low eighties that day, which is a fair oral summary but not the exact station value.

Campaign slide: the day was rounded to 82F for readability in a climate narrative deck.

LaGuardia comparison chart: the airport sat higher on the same date, and one witness later imported that airport warmth into their park recollection by mistake.

Park station methodology note: the exact daily average was preserved with decimal precision even though public summaries often rounded to whole numbers or broad categories like low eighties.

Witness A: 'I remember the park being about 82, maybe a shade under, while the airport was a bit warmer.' This is close, but not exact.

Weather digest: the date was folded into a string of warm July days and described as an early-wave heat example, which is contextually true but numerically coarse.

Draft infographic: someone labeled the park line 81.8F because the visual rounded from an intermediate export rather than from the final worksheet.

Monthly anomaly sheet: July 2023 was warm overall and the single day sat above older normals, but the sheet's purpose was anomaly comparison, not exact daily recall.

Station pair memo: several readers later remembered only that both Central Park and LaGuardia were 'around the low eighties,' which preserved the general picture while dissolving the station-specific decimal.

Correction line: the precise Central Park figure remained 81.7F even after campaign materials and witness summaries generated multiple nearby but less exact values.

Top-5 killer weather case with many nearby rounded and station-confused values surrounding one exact station reading.


Question: What was the exact effective date of the wetland access permit?

Permit face and legal stamp: the wetland access permit became effective on 2021-05-24.

Board vote recap: the permit package cleared in May, which is true but conflates approval with legal effective date.

Consultant testimony: 'It was basically a June 1 start,' a claim that sounds clean and memorable but is not corroborated by the permit face.

Field mobilization note: crews were briefed on 2021-05-27, which later got mistaken for the effective date in several oral summaries.

Handbook update: permit guidance was refreshed on 2021-06-02 after the permit had already become effective.

Landowner memory: notice arrived in the back half of May, which supports the broad time region while failing to pin the legal date exactly.

Ecologist testimony: the permit was active before the June survey and after the final May vote. This narrows the window but is still coarser than the exact legal effective date.

Summary packet: the action was repeatedly described as a late-spring or Q2 2021 wetlands permit, both of which are accurate but less precise than the exact date.

Clerk draft error: one early chronology listed 2021-05-25 after someone copied the issuance line instead of the effective-date line, creating a near-date trap.

Correction memo: the exact effective date remained 2021-05-24 after the board packet, field schedule, and handbook refresh were untangled from the permit face itself.

Panel conclusion: nearly every witness described the right sequence, but the only exact legal effective date came from the permit face and the correction memo that later clarified it.

Top-5 killer permit chronology case with many adjacent legal and operational dates crowding the exact effective date.


Question: What was the exact annual mean methane concentration cited for 2004?

Report table citation: the exact annual mean methane concentration for 2004 was 1774.62 ppb.

Debate shorthand: the 2004 mean sat in the high-1770s ppb band, a broad description that is directionally correct but not exact.

Slide deck: one visual rounded the annual mean to 1775 ppb for readability.

Public-facing note: another summary described the same value as roughly 1.78 ppm, which is a converted approximation rather than the exact report-table expression.

Cross-exam note: a questioner repeatedly confused neighboring annual values and asked whether 2004 was the 1776-ish year or the 1774-ish year, illustrating how the nearby cluster pollutes memory.

Handout margin: one copy carried 1774.6 ppb after truncation, which is very close to the exact value but still not the precise report figure.

Trend memo: the annual mean was repeatedly discussed in relation to neighboring high-1770s years, making the cluster more salient than the exact decimal.

Methodology note: the report preserves the exact annual mean with two decimals even though derivative summaries round, truncate, or convert it for audience convenience.

Audience summary: some attendees left remembering 1774.6, others 1775, and others only that it belonged to a mid-2000s high plateau in methane terms.

Correction note: the exact report value is 1774.62 ppb, not the rounded, truncated, or converted variants that kept circulating after the debate.

Moderator summary: both scientists accepted the same authoritative table, but their rhetoric created a cloud of nearby defensible numbers around the exact annual mean.

Top-5 killer climate case with rounded, truncated, converted, and neighboring-year methane values crowding the exact annual mean.


Question: What was the exact timestamp on the witness phone log?

Carrier record: the witness phone log shows the call beginning at exactly 2026-03-11 19:43:27.

Reception desk note: the witness called at about 7:45 p.m., a rounded notation that later drifted into several summaries.

Carrier printout header on one draft looked like 19:43 because seconds were omitted, creating a cleaner but coarser timestamp than the final admitted exhibit.

Hallway camera note: motion near the desk was logged at 19:44:02, which several participants mistakenly treated as the call time because it sat so close to the carrier record.

Marshal recollection: the call happened a little before quarter to eight and after sunset, which is broad sequence truth rather than exact timing.

Dispatch relay record: the witness report was repeated at 19:43:48, making it another authoritative-looking but still later time in the packet.

Carrier correction memo: the exact outgoing call began at 19:43:27 and not at the rounded 19:43 or the later relay and camera times that clustered around it.

Hearing packet shorthand: counsel repeatedly used phrases like 'during the 7:43 minute,' 'before 7:44,' and 'around quarter to eight,' all of which are plausible enough to crowd the exact second.

Timeline chart also included a neighboring 19:42:58 text message to the witness's brother, which some readers later fused with the phone call because both sat inside the same minute-level story.

Evidence note: the provider log was treated as controlling because witness recollections, hallway motion, and dispatch relays all preserved only approximate sequence around the call.

Summary: many timestamps in the record are true and close, but only one is the exact start time on the witness phone log itself.

Top-5 killer phone-log case with several highly similar authoritative and quasi-authoritative neighboring timestamps.


Question: What was the exact timestamp when the west loading dock camera first showed the silver case crossing the threshold?

The west loading dock camera export, which became exhibit 22 after three rounds of authentication argument, records the first frame where the silver case fully crosses the threshold at exactly 2026-08-21 06:14:23. Every later summary in the packet drifted away from this second-level value in one direction or another because the morning was reconstructed through radio chatter, clip stills, rounded logs, and the testimony of people who kept anchoring memory to the forklift alarm that followed a few moments later.

Shift worksheet entry: the crossing was logged as 06:14 because minute-level notation was the default on the worksheet and nobody expected a second-level dispute at the time.

Supervisor recap email: the silver case crossed at about 6:15 a.m., a rounded value that later became sticky because the email was easier to search than the raw video export.

Hallway still image: a frame stamped 06:14:27 shows the case already inside the dock line, creating a near-neighbor timestamp that looks authoritative but is later than the first threshold crossing.

Radio record: the forklift alarm was relayed at 06:14:31, and several witnesses incorrectly tied the case movement to that broadcast rather than to the camera crossing itself.

Witness A described the event as happening 'during the 6:14 minute, before the alarm call,' which supports the right time region but not the exact second.

Witness B insisted on 06:15 because that was the rounded value in the supervisor email she reviewed later, not because she independently saw the threshold crossing.

Camera synchronization note: the dock camera and yard camera were aligned at 05:02 that morning; defense questioning still tried to imply a clock drift, but no alert or desync event was logged.

Dispatch note: a neighboring gate event was recorded at 06:14:18, close enough that one draft chronology briefly copied the wrong line into the threshold column.

Draft chronology revision: an early spreadsheet listed 06:14:24 because the reviewer clicked the second frame after threshold instead of the first frame across the line.

Hearing shorthand repeatedly used 'just after 6:14,' 'before the alarm,' and 'around quarter past six,' all of which are semantically sticky but less precise than the export.

Corrective order: the panel distinguished between the first crossing frame, later stills, alarm relay timing, and rounded worksheet entries, and retained only the export value as controlling for the precise question.

Crowded top-5 killer with multiple same-minute neighbors, a near-exact draft error, and several authoritative-looking but later timestamps.