Question: What was the exact amount on the emergency lodging reimbursement?

The corrected reimbursement ledger and matching bank export agree that the emergency lodging reimbursement was exactly $117.38. That value later became surprisingly hard to recover because almost every adjacent document rounded it, bucketed it, or blended it with neighboring lodging and meal charges from the same disrupted travel window.

Travel coordinator chat: 'It was about one-eighteen, one of the bigger but still routine emergency lodging claims.' This is broadly right but not exact.

Expense worksheet draft: an early pass showed $117.30 before taxes and service adjustments were reconciled into the final reimbursement line.

Policy memo: emergency lodging items in the low one-hundreds were often summarized verbally as 'about one-twenty' during review meetings because the threshold discussions cared about scale, not cents.

Batch sheet: the reimbursement sat next to a $117.83 hotel parking line, and multiple reviewers later confused the two because they were in the same cluster and differed by only a few cents.

Receipt image note: one reviewer briefly transcribed the line as $117.88 before the decimal and trailing digits were verified against the statement export.

Manager summary: the reimbursement was in the one-hundred-seventeen-dollar range and below the manual hotel escalation threshold. Useful context, but still less exact than the ledger.

Correction email: the exact emergency lodging reimbursement was $117.38 and not the rounded, neighbor-line, or scan-error values that kept circulating during review.

Dispute call transcript: participants bounced among 'about one-eighteen,' 'one seventeen and change,' and 'that larger hotel item,' producing several semantically aligned but distinct retrieval traps.

Bank export cluster also contained a $118.00 rounded hold release and a $117.83 neighboring parking reimbursement, both of which looked suspiciously answer-like in shallow retrieval.

Board note: nearly every secondary record preserved the same monetary neighborhood, but only the corrected ledger and correction email preserved the exact cents for the lodging line itself.

Crowded top-5 killer amount case with same-neighborhood values, near-exact scan errors, and adjacent clustered amounts.


Question: What was the exact annual mean CO2 concentration cited for 1988?

The cited annual mean CO2 concentration for 1988 in the report table was exactly 351.57 ppm. That line later got buried under surrounding discussion of the late-1980s acceleration narrative, the famous summer testimony period, and a stack of nearby rounded and comparative values that all sounded answer-like without preserving the exact annual mean.

Debate shorthand: the 1988 annual mean sat in the low 352 ppm range, which is directionally fine but still not the precise reported number.

Slide deck: one chart labeled the year 351.6 ppm after rounding to a single decimal place.

Public-facing summary: another document called it about 352 ppm because the writer prioritized readability over table fidelity.

Cross-examination note: a witness repeatedly toggled between the famous 1988 summer testimony context and the annual mean itself, causing neighboring monthly and annual numbers to drift together in memory.

Handout margin: an intern copied the figure as 351.75 ppm in one draft packet, introducing a near-exact but wrong decimal pair that later had to be corrected.

Trend memo: 1988 was repeatedly compared to nearby annual means in the low 350s, making it easy to remember the cluster correctly while still forgetting the exact table row.

Methodology note: the authoritative table preserved the exact annual mean at 351.57 ppm, while summary materials rounded, truncated, or rhetorically grouped the year into broader trend language.

Audience Q&A: participants asked whether 1988 was the 351.6 year, the almost-352 year, or the summer-spike year, showing how many neighboring but plausible retrieval anchors the record now contains.

Comparative appendix: neighboring years in the late 1980s and early 1990s all sat close enough together to make exact annual recall brittle when only rounded narratives were retained.

Correction line: the exact cited annual mean for 1988 remained 351.57 ppm despite the one-decimal, whole-number, and near-miss draft variants circulating around it.

Crowded top-5 killer climate case with rounded and near-exact yearly CO2 values surrounding the exact annual mean.


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

The LaGuardia station table recorded the exact 2023-07-14 daily average at 82.6F. That figure sits inside a crowded neighborhood of citywide low-eighties summaries, rounded airport shorthand, and nearby Central Park comparisons that make precise station recall unusually fragile.

Public comms copy: the airport was described as roughly 83F for readability in a climate-change summary.

Witness recollection: the airport was in the eighty-two to eighty-three zone and somewhat warmer than the park. Correct in feel, but still not the exact table value.

Central Park comparison memo: one chart placed the park in the low 81s and the airport in the low 82s, which later caused multiple speakers to blur the two stations together into one citywide number.

Slide annotation: one presenter rounded the airport line to 82.5F after exporting the chart without the final decimal update, creating a near-exact but still wrong figure.

Station methodology note: the exact LaGuardia figure remained 82.6F, while summaries often collapsed it into whole-degree or station-pair narratives.

Campaign note: the date was folded into a string of warm mid-July days, and some summaries simply called the airport reading 'about eighty-three' because the rhetorical emphasis was on climate trend, not decimal precision.

Airport operations sheet also contained a same-date runway-surface summary with a much higher number, which some readers incorrectly treated as if it were the station average.

Monthly anomaly appendix: several days in the same week sat in overlapping low-eighties clusters, making the exact daily airport average easy to replace with a nearby but still plausible warm-day value.

Correction note: the exact LaGuardia daily average on that date was 82.6F, not 82.5F, 83F, or a merged citywide shorthand that blended airport and park records together.

Review summary: almost every surrounding statement captured the right heat story and the right station neighborhood, but only the exact table row and the later correction preserve the precise decimal value.

Crowded top-5 killer weather case with station confusion, rounded whole-degree summaries, and a near-exact chart export error.


Question: What was the exact timestamp when the archive cabinet sensor first alarmed?

Sensor controller export: the archive cabinet sensor first alarmed at exactly 2026-10-04 03:12:19.

Building automation dashboard rounded the alarm into the 03:12 minute because the default operator view suppressed seconds unless a forensic export was requested.

Facilities pager relay fired at 03:12:33, close enough that several operators later remembered the pager time as if it were the first alarm time.

Security camera overlay showed the cabinet room door opening at 03:12:27, creating another near-neighbor event that looked authoritative in the later packet.

Operator note: 'alarm started during the 03:12 minute before the pager buzzed,' which is accurate in sequence but coarser than the controller export.

Draft incident timeline listed 03:12:12 after someone copied the pre-alarm polling line rather than the first alarm line, introducing a near-exact but wrong time.

Maintenance sync note: the cabinet sensor controller had been synchronized at 01:11 and no subsequent drift event was recorded before the overnight alarm.

Escalation call started at 03:13:02, which some later summaries treated as the first 'officially noticed' moment despite not being the first alarm.

Report shorthand repeatedly used 'just after 3:12 a.m.' and 'before the pager,' both of which are true but incomplete if the query asks for the exact timestamp.

Correction memo reaffirmed 03:12:19 as the first alarm time and explained why the dashboard minute, pager relay, and door-open event had all contaminated witness memory.

Panel finding: the record contains several nearby machine timestamps, one rounded operator view, and multiple coarse witness summaries, but only one first-alarm second on the controller export.

Crowded top-5 killer sensor case with many nearby machine timestamps and one exact first-alarm record.


Question: What was the exact annual mean sea level anomaly cited for the report year?

The cited annual mean sea level anomaly in the report year was exactly 91.3 mm.

Hearing shorthand repeatedly called it about 90 mm because the testimony emphasized the larger trend rather than table fidelity.

One slide rounded the same annual mean to 91 mm for visual cleanliness.

Another summary translated the value into roughly 9.1 cm above baseline, which is conceptually aligned but not the exact report expression.

Cross-exam note: neighboring years were also elevated, and the discussion kept bouncing among low-90s annual anomalies, decadal means, and trend acceleration language.

Draft handout showed 91.2 mm after a truncation error in one chart export, creating a near-exact but incorrect figure that circulated briefly.

Methods note: the report preserved 91.3 mm exactly, while derivative materials rounded to whole millimeters or broad centimeter shorthand depending on audience.

Audience recap: some attendees left saying 90, others 91, others low nineties, and a few remembered only the trend claim that the value sat among the highest on record.

Context appendix: the anomaly was also discussed relative to baseline windows, acceleration arguments, and neighboring annual peaks, all of which are true context but not the single exact annual value.

Correction note: the precise annual mean anomaly remains 91.3 mm, not 90, 91, 91.2, or 'about 9 cm.'

Moderator note: both sides in the debate accepted the same underlying report table, even as their rhetoric generated a fog of neighboring approximate values around the exact one.

Crowded top-5 killer anomaly case with rounded, converted, and near-exact variants surrounding a single exact report value.


Question: What was the exact timestamp on the corridor camera when the black portfolio first crossed the doorway?

Raw corridor camera export: the black portfolio first crossed the doorway at exactly 2026-04-02 08:17:26.

Rounded guard note: the crossing happened at 08:17.

Dispatcher relay: security referenced the movement at 08:17:39.

Still-frame packet: a later frame showing the portfolio fully inside the corridor is stamped 08:17:31.

Witness A said it happened 'during the 8:17 minute, before the radio call.'

Witness B claimed 08:18 exactly because that is what he remembered from a later summary email.

Summary email rounded the event to about 8:18 a.m.

Draft chronology mistakenly listed 08:17:24 after someone copied the pre-threshold frame instead of the first crossing frame.

Another draft listed 08:17:27 after using the second frame across the line.

Phone log to chambers started at 08:17:44 and was repeatedly used as a memory anchor even though it post-dated the crossing.

Maintenance sync note: camera clocks were aligned at 06:11 that morning.

Hallway activity memo says the crossing happened just after 8:17 and before 8:18, preserving sequence but not the second.

Panel shorthand kept calling this the 08:17 doorway event.

Correction sheet reaffirmed 2026-04-02 08:17:26 as the first crossing timestamp, not the rounded or neighboring records.

Witness C placed it after the elevator chime at 08:17:12 and before the hallway still, which narrows the range but does not resolve the exact second.

Administrative index refers only to 'morning corridor movement, 8:17-ish.'

Extreme crowd-out case with many same-minute and near-second distractors competing against one exact camera timestamp.


Question: What was the exact amount on the hotel incident reimbursement?

Final corrected reimbursement ledger: the hotel incident reimbursement was exactly $89.47.

Coordinator shorthand called it about ninety dollars.

Expense recap described it as high-eighties and below the manual review threshold.

Draft ledger line showed $89.40 before the tax adjustment was reconciled.

Scan note recorded $89.42 after the clerk misread the final digit on the receipt image.

Another worksheet entry used $89.74 after two digits were transposed in a manual copy.

Policy memo says reimbursements in the high-eighties to low-nineties were often summarized as ninety-dollar items during oral review.

Neighboring parking reimbursement in the same batch was $89.83, which later confused reviewers comparing clustered charges.

Correction email restated the exact hotel incident reimbursement as $89.47 after matching the bank line against the receipt image.

Hearing shorthand alternated among eighty-nine and change, about ninety, and high-eighties hotel item, all of which felt semantically close to the true number.

Batch total note listed $267.91 for the cluster, adding another unrelated but authoritative-looking number nearby.

Manager review form clipped the amount to $89.5 in one chart, creating a rounded decimal form that still points into the same numeric neighborhood.

Internal note: the reimbursement definitely did not hit ninety exactly, even though many people summarized it that way.

The posted amount remained under ninety and in the eighty-nine-dollar range throughout the review packet.

Only the corrected ledger and the correction email preserve the exact cents without rounding, transposition, or clustering noise.

Extreme crowd-out amount case with many same-neighborhood and near-exact distractors around one exact reimbursement value.


Question: What was the exact annual mean sea ice extent value cited in the report?

Primary report table, as read into the record during the methods hearing after two earlier witnesses had already muddied the issue with rounded graphics, trend rhetoric, and comparisons to neighboring years: the exact annual mean sea ice extent value cited in the report was 6.84 million square kilometers. That number sounds deceptively simple until one looks at the surrounding packet, where the same year is repeatedly described as roughly 6.8, low 6.8s, upper sixes, about 684 x 10^4 square kilometers, a hair under 6.85, part of the late-decade low cluster, and comparable to several nearby annual means that differ only in the second decimal place. The hearing transcript makes clear that almost everyone in the room was narrating the same underlying reality but at different levels of precision and with different motives: some were simplifying for readability, some were rhetorically emphasizing trend direction, some were carelessly truncating, and some were sliding from annual means into adjacent metrics like seasonal minimum extent or decadal averages. The report table itself remained the only clean source for the exact annual mean value, and that source states 6.84 million square kilometers.

Public summary version A described the same annual mean as about 6.8 million square kilometers because the communications team was trying to keep the number visually lightweight and trend-friendly for nontechnical readers.

Public summary version B called it approximately 6.84 million square kilometers but in context used that figure as part of a sentence about an extended decline, not as a standalone exact citation.

A slide deck rounded the annual mean down to 6.8 on one slide and up to 6.9 on another because different designers used different display rules for one decimal place versus whole-tenth shorthand.

A draft handout preserved the value as 6.83 after truncation from a spreadsheet export that dropped the last decimal step too early in the formatting chain.

An outreach conversion note rendered the same annual mean as roughly 684 x 10^4 square kilometers, mathematically related but not the report’s exact expression.

Witness A described the year as living in the upper-sixes and said the exact decimal was less important than the direction of change compared with the prior decade.

Witness B kept saying the annual mean was “basically 6.85” because that was the nearest number he remembered from a chart with tightly clustered neighboring years.

Comparative appendix listed neighboring annual means at 6.79, 6.81, 6.86, 6.88, and 6.91, creating a dense neighborhood of plausible values that all belong to the same semantic family.

Cross-examination repeatedly drifted from annual mean extent to annual minimum extent, then to decade-level averages, then back again, so several statements in the record sound numerically relevant while referring to adjacent but distinct measures.

One chart note labeled the year 6.840 exactly, which is numerically equivalent but appeared only in a derivative visual generated after the report table had already been finalized.

Audience recap notes captured the value as 6.84, 6.8-ish, just under 6.85, and part of the same low cluster as several surrounding years, all without carefully distinguishing exact citation from verbal paraphrase.

A methods memo warned that once the annual mean was folded into a broader trend argument, speakers started substituting low-precision category labels for the exact reported value.

A review packet summary used 6.84 million square kilometers but immediately surrounded it with neighboring values and comparative language, making the exact value harder to isolate in retrieval even though it remained correct.

A draft chart incorrectly listed 6.82 after a stale filter selected the wrong row in an annual table, introducing a plausible but unsupported near-miss into the packet history.

Another chart export listed 6.87 after the designer copied the neighboring year label into the plotted annotation.

Moderator summary: most disagreement in the room concerned narrative framing, but nearly everyone kept the value inside the same very narrow numeric neighborhood, which is why exact recall remains brittle.

Correction line: the report’s exact annual mean sea ice extent value remained 6.84 million square kilometers, not 6.8, 6.83, 6.85, 6.87, or any of the rounded, truncated, or neighboring-year values that surfaced during testimony and slide preparation.

Expanded extreme crowd-out climate case with many same-family annual values, equivalent expressions, and draft errors surrounding one exact cited report value.


Question: What was the exact timestamp on the stairwell camera when the gray archive box first cleared the landing?

Primary stairwell camera export, admitted only after the facilities integrator explained the sync chain, the frame numbering convention, the corridor-delay issue in one derivative viewer, and the reason later printed stills did not preserve the earliest crossing frame: the gray archive box first fully cleared the landing at exactly 2026-07-22 17:18:43. By the time counsel finished reconstructing the event, the hearing record contained at least a dozen temporally adjacent descriptions that were all either true in some narrower sense or dangerously close to true: a minute-only worksheet entry at 17:18, a supervisor recap at about 5:19 p.m., a still frame at 17:18:47, a radio relay at 17:18:58, a neighboring call at 17:18:52, draft timeline variants at 17:18:41 and 17:18:44, and witness language such as “during the 5:18 minute” or “after the door pulse but before the relay.” The court ultimately held that only the raw stairwell export answered the exact question.

Landing worksheet recorded the movement at 17:18 because the worksheet tracked sequence by minute and was never intended to preserve seconds.

Supervisor recap transformed the event into about 5:19 p.m. because the recap grouped several 17:18-minute events into one cleaner managerial narrative.

Hallway still showed the box fully beyond the landing at 17:18:47, later than the first crossing but visually easier for the panel to discuss.

Dispatch radio line relayed the movement at 17:18:58, which multiple witnesses later treated as if it were the event itself because it was the first time they heard it verbalized.

Witness A remembered the box clearing during the 5:18 minute after the stairwell sensor pulse and before the relay.

Witness B insisted on 17:19 sharp because he had internalized the recap email rather than the raw export.

Witness C narrowed the event to after the 17:18:31 door sensor pulse and before 17:18:58, which is helpful but still leaves many plausible candidate seconds.

Draft timeline A listed 17:18:41 after the reviewer used the first visible wheel frame instead of the first fully-cleared frame.

Draft timeline B listed 17:18:44 after the reviewer overcorrected to the next frame.

Facilities sync note: the camera cluster was aligned to master time at 15:04 and no drift alert appeared thereafter.

The index abstract called it the 5:18 landing movement, which was sequence-true but exactness-poor.

Correction memo reaffirmed 2026-07-22 17:18:43 as the first fully-cleared landing crossing and explicitly rejected 17:18:41, 17:18:44, 17:18:47, 17:18:52, and 17:19:00 as either draft errors or later adjacent events.

Neighboring records call opened at 17:18:52, giving counsel another authoritative-looking but later timestamp to weaponize.

A still-image packet for the jury rounded one frame to 17:18 because the print header suppressed seconds, making the image look less precise than the export from which it came.

A side-channel note from the integrator mentioned that one review workstation displayed frame times one frame late until a patch was applied, which partly explains why draft timelines drifted by one or two seconds.

Retellings usually smoothed the event into just before 5:19 or sometime in the 5:18 minute because that cadence fit the surrounding oral chronology more naturally than a second-level time.

Panel conclusion: nearly every document preserved the correct minute and many preserved a very small interval around the event, but only the raw export and the correction memo preserved the exact crossing second.

Expanded extreme crowd-out timestamp case with many same-minute machine records, draft errors, and rounded derivatives surrounding one exact crossing second.


Question: What was the exact amount on the emergency courier wire adjustment?

Corrected treasury ledger, after a week of circulations that somehow managed to create an entire ecosystem of wrong-but-plausible amounts around a single line item: the emergency courier wire adjustment posted at exactly $19,402.73. The problem is not that the file lacks evidence; it is that it contains too much same-neighborhood evidence. Staff discussed the line as about $19.4k, slides rendered it as roughly $19,403, one draft ledger showed $19,402.70 before the final three cents were reconciled, another showed $19,402.78 after a cent-column transposition, the export view clipped it to $19,402.7, an adjacent fee reversal landed at $19,402.37, another nearby line sat at $19,470.23, and one stale revision briefly read $19,402.72. Nearly every record stayed close enough to the truth to feel semantically irresistible. Only the corrected treasury ledger preserved the exact amount without rounding, clipping, transposition, or adjacency contamination: $19,402.73.

Operations shorthand called it about $19.4k, which preserved the scale but destroyed the cents.

Executive slide rendered it as roughly $19,403 to keep the chart visually tidy.

Draft ledger A showed $19,402.70 before final reconciliation.

Draft ledger B showed $19,402.78 after a cent transposition.

Statement export clipped the value to $19,402.7 in a table view that suppressed the last decimal precision beyond one place.

Review email described it as being in the $19,400 range and below the next escalation bucket, which is true but coarser than exact recall requires.

Neighboring fee reversal in the same packet was $19,402.37, creating a same-prefix, same-digit trap just one transposition away from the true value.

Adjacent line item was $19,470.23, which some witnesses remembered only as the other nineteen-four item.

Correction email restated the exact amount as $19,402.73 and rejected all rounded, clipped, and transposed variants.

Hearing shorthand bounced among nineteen-four hundred, nineteen-four-oh-three, and nineteen-four-two-ish, all semantically close but numerically distinct.

Batch total note listed a cluster subtotal above fifty-eight thousand dollars, adding another authoritative-looking but irrelevant number to the packet.

Methods note: only the corrected treasury ledger and correction email preserved the exact cents; every other surface rounded, clipped, bucketed, or conflated adjacent lines.

One printed handout simplified the amount to $19.4K, maximizing readability and minimizing exactness.

A stale revision briefly showed $19,402.72 after a pre-reconciliation cell was copied forward.

Another stale revision showed $19,402.79 after a different analyst copied the wrong cent pair from a neighboring row.

Manager oral summary referred to it as the courier wire in the upper nineteen-thousands, which is conceptually right but numerically weak.

Board recap admitted that everyone in the room agreed on the general scale while failing repeatedly on the exact cents, which is why the corrected ledger had to control the final answer.

Expanded extreme crowd-out amount case with many same-prefix, same-digit, and one-cent-off distractors surrounding one exact treasury value.


Question: What was the exact timestamp on the interview room camera when the envelope was placed on the table?

Direct answer memo prepared by counsel: the exact timestamp on the interview room camera when the envelope was placed on the table was described variously as 11:07, 11:08, around 11:07:30, and shortly after eleven-oh-seven, depending on which rounded packet the witness prep team happened to be quoting. The memo repeats the query wording aggressively but preserves only cleaned-up approximations.

Question-and-answer sheet for oral argument restates the query almost verbatim and gives 2026-01-11 11:08:00 as the answer because the drafter copied the minute-rounded still caption rather than the underlying export row.

Cross-exam prep sheet uses the full query wording and answers it with 11:07:30 because counsel wanted a memorable phrase, not a forensic one.

A different prep sheet repeats the same question wording and answers it with 11:07, citing the rounded overlay on a printed still rather than the raw export.

A radio packet summary again mirrors the query phrasing and then points to 11:07:42, which was actually the later acknowledgment time and not the placement itself.

Hearing binder tab titled EXACT TIMESTAMP ON INTERVIEW ROOM CAMERA repeats the phrasing cleanly but bounces among 11:07, 11:08, and shortly after 11:07 because it was assembled from secondary notes.

Hallway still packet shows the envelope already on the table at 11:07:24, which is later than the first placement moment but visually authoritative enough to attract retrieval.

A nearby phone call to chambers began at 11:07:26 and kept entering oral reconstructions because everyone wanted one clean sequence chart.

The controlling exhibit was not any of those query-like summaries. It was Exhibit C-17, an NVR export row using camera channel codes, frame indices, and event-class metadata. That row does not read like a natural-language answer at all, but it marks the first qualifying frame for the envelope contacting the table surface at exactly 2026-01-11 11:07:18.

The technical correction annotation on the same exhibit restated that 2026-01-11 11:07:18 was the first qualifying frame and distinguished it from rounded captions, later stills, and relay times.

Panel note: nearly every fluent English summary in the packet echoed the query better than the export row itself, but those summaries were also the least precise artifacts in the file.

Anti-lexical top-5 case: query-echoing distractors dominate while the exact answer is buried in a technical export row and correction note.


Question: What was the exact reimbursement amount on the witness travel receipt?

Answer-prep document: the exact reimbursement amount on the witness travel receipt was summarized as about $63, roughly sixty-three dollars, and in one place as $63.00 because the prep material privileged easy speech over exact bookkeeping.

Question list for oral argument repeats the full query and gives $63.20 as the answer because the drafter copied a rounded travel summary rather than the posted reimbursement line.

A hearing binder tab titled EXACT REIMBURSEMENT AMOUNT alternates among $63, $63.2, and sixty-three and change, creating high lexical overlap with the question while failing to preserve the exact cents.

Expense recap sheet says the exact reimbursement amount on the witness travel receipt sat in the low sixty-threes and belonged to the smaller same-day reimbursements.

Neighboring meal line in the same packet was $63.28, and one reviewer carried that value into a summary sentence because both lines appeared under the same hearing-day heading.

A worksheet revision briefly used $63.21 after a one-cent keying error, adding another clean near-miss.

The bank export detail row, which does not mirror the natural-language query at all, lists line code TRV-RMB-4, settlement class witness travel, and posted amount 63.17. In the packet this row is surrounded by metadata and adjacent reimbursement lines, making it look more like bookkeeping debris than like an answer sentence.

Policy memo: sub-$65 witness reimbursements were often rounded to whole dollars in oral review unless exact cents became part of the dispute.

Correction email: the posted witness travel reimbursement amount was $63.17 after the meal line was separated out of the same-day packet.

One chart rounded the reimbursement to $63.2 and another to $63, creating clean visually aligned distractors with stronger lexical overlap than the raw export row.

Clerk note: nearly every clean-English summary in the binder pointed to the right monetary neighborhood while failing on the exact cents; only the coded export row and the correction email preserved the precise amount.

Anti-lexical top-5 case: the false entries mirror the question, while the exact amount is buried in export metadata and a later correction email.


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

Public FAQ: the exact annual mean methane concentration recorded for 2004 is described as about 1775 ppb, or roughly 1.775 ppm if someone prefers the converted phrasing. The FAQ repeats the user-like wording but deliberately rounds for accessibility.

Testimony prep answer says the exact annual mean methane concentration recorded for 2004 lived in the high 1770s and should be paraphrased loosely unless table fidelity becomes unavoidable.

Slide appendix answering the exact annual mean methane concentration question uses 1774.6 after truncation and 1775 after whole-number rounding on adjacent slides.

Another summary says the exact annual mean methane concentration recorded for 2004 was around 1.78 ppm, preserving a converted approximation rather than the report table expression.

The actual report table row, buried inside appendix columns and unit notes rather than written as a natural-language answer, records the 2004 annual methane mean as 1774.62 ppb.

Neighboring report rows show nearby high-1770s values for adjacent years, making the exact 2004 row easy to replace if one remembers only the cluster.

Correction note: the exact table value for 2004 remained 1774.62 ppb, not the rounded, truncated, or converted figures used elsewhere in the packet.

Methods annotation: later summaries privilege readability, but the table row is the controlling source when the question asks for the exact annual mean.

Cross-exam summary drifted among 1774.6, 1775, and 1.775 ppm, all close enough to build a very sticky retrieval neighborhood around the exact figure.

Moderator note: nearly every fluent sentence in the packet was less precise than the raw table row and later correction note.

Anti-lexical climate case: query-echoing entries are rounded or converted, while the exact value lives in a raw table row and a correction note.


Question: What was the exact timestamp on the interview room camera when the envelope was placed on the table?

Direct answer memo prepared by counsel: the exact timestamp on the interview room camera when the envelope was placed on the table was described variously as 11:07, 11:08, around 11:07:30, and shortly after eleven-oh-seven, depending on which rounded packet the witness prep team happened to be quoting. The memo repeats the query wording aggressively but preserves only cleaned-up approximations.

Question-and-answer sheet for oral argument restates the query almost verbatim and gives 2026-01-11 11:08:00 as the answer because the drafter copied the minute-rounded still caption rather than the underlying export row.

Cross-exam prep sheet uses the full query wording and answers it with 11:07:30 because counsel wanted a memorable phrase, not a forensic one.

A different prep sheet repeats the same question wording and answers it with 11:07, citing the rounded overlay on a printed still rather than the raw export.

A radio packet summary again mirrors the query phrasing and then points to 11:07:42, which was actually the later acknowledgment time and not the placement itself.

Hearing binder tab titled EXACT TIMESTAMP ON INTERVIEW ROOM CAMERA repeats the phrasing cleanly but bounces among 11:07, 11:08, and shortly after 11:07 because it was assembled from secondary notes.

An oral prep margin note says the exact timestamp on the interview room camera was likely in the 11:07 minute and definitely before the records call, which narrows the window while still ducking exactness.

Hallway still packet shows the envelope already on the table at 11:07:24, which is later than the first placement moment but visually authoritative enough to attract retrieval.

A nearby phone call to chambers began at 11:07:26 and kept entering oral reconstructions because everyone wanted one clean sequence chart.

The controlling exhibit was not any of those query-like summaries. It was Exhibit C-17, an NVR export row using camera channel codes, frame indices, and event-class metadata. That row does not read like a natural-language answer at all, but it marks the first qualifying frame for the envelope contacting the table surface at exactly 2026-01-11 11:07:18.

The technical correction annotation on the same exhibit restated that 2026-01-11 11:07:18 was the first qualifying frame and distinguished it from rounded captions, later stills, and relay times.

Panel note: nearly every fluent English summary in the packet echoed the query better than the export row itself, but those summaries were also the least precise artifacts in the file.

A clerk index flattened the event to 11:07 in its subject heading, making the rounded minute the dominant retrieval phrase in later packet searches.

A derivative still caption used 11:07:22 because it indexed the first fully-resting frame rather than the first contact frame.

Another derivative summary preferred 11:07:20 after counting two frames into the contact sequence on a delayed workstation export.

A witness kept tying the event to the records call and saying it happened before 11:07:30 but after the desk bell, preserving rough sequence while reinforcing the wrong neighboring anchors.

Extreme anti-lexical case where the clean query-shaped summaries are mostly wrong and the exact answer lives in an ugly technical export row plus correction annotation.


Question: What was the exact reimbursement amount on the emergency hotel receipt?

Answer-prep packet under the exact reimbursement question says the emergency hotel receipt was about ninety dollars, high eighties, and effectively ninety for oral purposes. It repeats the user phrasing and keeps the amount semantically close while refusing to preserve the exact cents.

Oral argument sheet repeats the question verbatim and gives $89.40 because the drafter copied the unreconciled worksheet value rather than the posted reimbursement line.

A cleaner summary card answers the same question with $89.5 because one chart rounded to the nearest tenth and nobody corrected the speech notes afterward.

Another prep note says the exact reimbursement amount on the emergency hotel receipt sat in the $89 range and was one of the low-ninety-ish travel items from the same disruption window.

Expense board note repeats the question language and answers with about $90 because the board packet was organized by thresholds, not by exact cents.

Neighboring parking line was $89.83 and a second lodging-related line was $89.74, both close enough that one reviewer later collapsed them into the same sentence about the hotel reimbursement.

Draft worksheet A showed $89.40 before tax reconciliation. Draft worksheet B showed $89.42 after a scan-reading error. Draft worksheet C showed $89.74 after a digit transposition from the parking line. All three remained in circulation long enough to contaminate memory.

A manager review form clipped the amount to $89.5 in one chart and to $90 in another because two different display rules were applied to the same underlying reimbursement family.

The exact value lives in a coded bank-export row rather than in any of the fluent summaries. Line HTL-RMB-9 in the posting export shows 89.47 after final reconciliation, and the row is easy to skim past because it sits among unrelated travel items, tax lines, and settlement metadata instead of answering the question in plain English.

The correction email later restated the emergency hotel reimbursement as $89.47 after matching the export row against the receipt image and excluding the adjacent parking charge. It is one of the only human-readable places where the exact cents survive intact.

Policy note says sub-$90 lodging reimbursements were routinely rounded upward in oral review because precision was thought not to matter unless someone challenged the receipt later.

Hearing shorthand alternated among high-eighties, about ninety, eighty-nine and change, and low ninety, all of which sit in the right semantic neighborhood while crowding the exact value.

A stale reconciliation cell briefly preserved $89.46 before the final cent adjustment settled, creating a one-cent trap very close to the final number.

The batch summary total and neighboring travel lines introduced several additional ninety-ish amounts that were unrelated to the exact hotel reimbursement but lived on the same pages and in the same review discussion.

Clerk note: almost every clean-English answer in the packet was less precise than the coded export row and later correction note, which is why the exact cents are so vulnerable to top-5 crowd-out despite not being absent from the record.

One revised packet even carried $89.48 for a day after a rounding-to-nearest-cent mistake in a copy step, adding yet another one-cent-off distractor with cleaner prose than the true source row.

Extreme anti-lexical amount case where fluent query-mirroring summaries are all rounded or wrong, while the exact cents live in a coded export line and correction email.


Question: What was the exact annual mean CO2 concentration recorded for 1988?

Public-facing FAQ answers the exact annual mean CO2 concentration question with about 352 ppm because it values readability and headline memory over table fidelity. It repeats the user wording closely while smearing the precise annual value into a rounded whole number.

Witness prep answer says the exact annual mean CO2 concentration recorded for 1988 was in the low 352 range and can be described as around 351.6 or roughly 352 depending on audience tolerance for decimals.

Slide appendix answers the exact annual mean CO2 question with 351.6 in one place, 352 in another, and 0.3516 thousand ppm in a third graphic because several derivative formats were prepared from one underlying table.

Another summary says the exact annual mean CO2 concentration recorded for 1988 belongs in the mid-351 to low-352 band and matters mainly as a hinge year in the late-1980s public climate debate.

A polished hearing handout repeats the exact query phrasing and then gives 351.6 because the designer rounded to one decimal place for visual consistency with the rest of the chart wall.

The actual source row does not look like an answer sentence at all. In the annual table, row 1988 appears between neighboring yearly entries and records 351.57 ppm as the mean concentration. The row is surrounded by year labels, units, neighboring values, and formatting noise, making it semantically weaker than the fluent summaries even though it is the controlling record.

Correction annotation: the exact annual mean for 1988 remained 351.57 ppm, not 351.6, 352, about 352, or any of the handout-style simplifications that spread through testimony and outreach material.

Neighboring annual values in the late-1980s table are close enough that one can remember the entire cluster correctly while still failing to identify the exact 1988 entry. Several reviewers later quoted adjacent-year numbers as if they were the 1988 annual mean.

One draft handout briefly preserved 351.75 after the wrong row was copied into the witness packet. It looks scientific, precise, and close, which is exactly what makes it dangerous for retrieval.

Cross-exam notes drifted among the annual mean, the summer testimony period, nearby years, and broader trend claims, leaving a cloud of semantically aligned but numerically non-identical candidates around the exact value.

Methods note says the raw annual table controls over later narrative summaries, but the methods page itself does not restate the number as a clean natural-language answer.

Panel summary: nearly every smooth sentence in the packet degrades the precision a little, while the exact value survives only in the ugly table row and its later correction line.

Extreme anti-lexical climate case where the query-aligned summaries are all rounded, and the exact annual mean lives only in a table row and correction note.


Question: What was the exact timestamp on the service corridor camera when the green evidence case first crossed the painted threshold?

Witness-prep answer sheet: the exact timestamp on the service corridor camera when the green evidence case first crossed the painted threshold was described as 16:42, about 16:43, during the 16:42 minute, and shortly before the later radio acknowledgment. This sheet was optimized for oral fluency, not for preserving the first-frame second.

Counsel outline repeats the query almost verbatim and gives 2026-05-06 16:43:00 as the answer because the rounded summary chart had already collapsed the event into the next minute.

Cross-exam prep note repeats the exact timestamp question and answers it with 16:42:51, which was actually the radio relay time later used as a mnemonic anchor in the hearing packet.

Another prep version uses 16:42:37 because that was the first still image where the case was clearly beyond the line, not the first threshold-crossing frame. The wording still mirrors the user query more naturally than the raw export does.

Operations recap says the exact timestamp on the service corridor camera landed in the 16:42 range and before the callout, preserving sequence while refusing exactness.

Clean summary card says the event happened at 16:42 because that was the minute bucket shown on the shift sheet and looked neat enough for executive review.

Still frame A shows the case already across the threshold at 16:42:36.

Still frame B shows the case fully clear at 16:42:37, which later became the preferred timestamp in a simplified chronology because it was visually crisp and easy to quote.

Dispatch radio acknowledgment was logged at 16:42:51 and repeatedly overfit into oral summaries as if it were the crossing itself.

A door sensor pulse hit at 16:42:18, leading one reviewer to build a false timeline where the threshold crossing was treated as a few seconds later than it really was.

Draft timeline A listed 16:42:31 after the reviewer clicked the second motion frame. Draft timeline B listed 16:42:34 after another reviewer overcorrected from the minute-rounded overlay. Draft timeline C used 16:42:35 after a still export changed frame numbering. None of these values survived final review, but all of them remained in packet history and are dangerously close to the truth.

A nearby call to records opened at 16:42:44 and then got woven into later sequence summaries because it fit naturally between the rounded shift sheet and the radio acknowledgment.

The controlling source was not any of those fluent summaries. It was export row SC-441-B in the NVR appendix, which used terse machine labels instead of natural-language explanation. That row recorded the first threshold-crossing frame for the green evidence case at exactly 2026-05-06 16:42:29.

The correction annotation on SC-441-B restated 2026-05-06 16:42:29 and distinguished it from all later stills, relay times, rounded logs, and frame-selection mistakes.

The maintenance sync note says the corridor camera, door sensor, and dispatch clock were aligned at 13:02 that afternoon. This matters for evidence confidence, but it does not make the raw export row linguistically easier to retrieve.

Panel recap admits that almost every human-readable summary in the packet keeps the right minute and the wrong second, while the coded export and the correction line preserve the exact crossing time.

Pathological anti-lexical timestamp case: 12+ query-shaped or near-query distractors compete against one ugly raw source row and its correction note.


Question: What was the exact reimbursement amount on the overnight relocation receipt?

Oral prep packet says the exact reimbursement amount on the overnight relocation receipt was about $214, just over two hundred, or somewhere in the low two-hundreds depending on which threshold discussion one used. Every sentence is shaped like a direct answer and every sentence sacrifices precision.

Question list repeats the full query and answers it with $214.00 because that was the rounded reimbursement bucket in the finance summary.

Another answer sheet gives $214.30 because the drafter copied a pre-tax worksheet rather than the posted line.

A summary card says the exact reimbursement amount on the overnight relocation receipt was $214.38, which came from a transposed scan correction and not from the final settled reimbursement.

Board memo answers the same question with two fourteen and change because nobody expected the cents to matter until the dispute hardened.

Neighboring meal receipt in the same packet was $214.83. Another relocation-adjacent line was $214.37. Both later appeared in side summaries that looked cleaner than the real source row.

Worksheet draft A showed $214.30, draft B showed $214.38, draft C showed $214.73 after a digit transposition, and a stale chart showed $214.4 because the final cent was clipped in display.

A manager review form clipped the amount to $214.3 in one chart and to $214 in another because two different display rules were applied to the same underlying reimbursement family.

The exact value does not live in any of the fluent summaries. It sits in settlement export line RLC-22, where the posted amount is 214.27 after tax and after exclusion of the adjacent meal item. The row is easy to skim past because it sits among unrelated travel items, tax lines, and settlement metadata instead of answering the question in plain English.

The correction email later restated the overnight relocation reimbursement as $214.27 after matching the export row against the receipt image and excluding the adjacent meal charge. It is one of the only human-readable places where the exact cents survive intact.

Policy note says low-two-hundred-dollar relocation reimbursements were often bucketed into rounded language because review focused on threshold class, not exact cents.

Hearing shorthand moved between about two-fourteen, low two-hundreds, two fourteen and change, and the settled relocation line, all of which strengthen the same semantic neighborhood around the exact amount.

A stale reconciliation cell briefly preserved $214.26 before the final cent adjustment landed, giving the file yet another one-cent-off trap close to the truth.

The batch summary total and neighboring travel lines introduced several additional two-hundred-fourteen-ish amounts that were unrelated to the exact hotel reimbursement but lived on the same pages and in the same review discussion.

Clerk note: almost every clean-English answer in the packet was less precise than the coded export row and later correction note, which is why the exact cents are so vulnerable to top-5 crowd-out despite not being absent from the record.

One revised packet even carried $214.28 for a day after a rounding-to-nearest-cent mistake in a copy step, adding yet another one-cent-off distractor with cleaner prose than the true source row.

Pathological anti-lexical amount case: most human-readable answers are wrong or rounded, while the exact cents survive only in a coded export row and a correction email.


Question: What was the exact annual mean nitrous oxide concentration recorded for 1997?

Public FAQ answers the exact annual mean nitrous oxide concentration question with about 311 ppb because it values readability and pedagogical simplicity over strict table fidelity. The sentence looks like a direct answer but is already rounded.

Testimony prep answer says the exact annual mean nitrous oxide concentration recorded for 1997 was in the low 311 range and can be described as 311.0-ish when speaking to a general audience.

Slide appendix answering the exact annual mean question uses 311.0 after one-decimal rounding and 311 after whole-number rounding on adjacent graphics.

Another summary says the exact annual mean nitrous oxide concentration recorded for 1997 sat around 0.311 ppm, preserving a converted approximation rather than the table expression.

A polished hearing card repeats the entire query and answers it with 310.97 after a truncation from a derivative chart export.

The actual table row does not look like an answer sentence at all. It sits inside a year-by-year atmospheric trace gas appendix and records 1997 at 310.98 ppb, surrounded by neighboring annual values, unit headings, and statistical notation.

Neighboring annual rows cluster tightly enough that several witnesses later remembered the right neighborhood while still assigning the exact value to the wrong year.

A draft handout briefly printed 311.08 after a row-offset bug, creating a scientific-looking but wrong near-exact alternative.

Correction note preserves 310.98 ppb as the exact 1997 annual mean and explicitly distinguishes it from one-decimal, whole-number, converted, and row-offset variants.

Methods note explains that derivative outreach materials round for readability while the raw annual appendix preserves the exact cited values.

Audience recap drifted among 311, 311.0, 310.97, and about 0.311 ppm, proving how easy it is for semantically close but numerically distinct values to dominate memory.

Cross-examination drifted into neighboring years, decadal trend framing, and ppm-vs-ppb conversion language, building a very dense retrieval neighborhood around the exact annual value.

Moderator summary: almost every fluent sentence in the packet degrades precision a little, whereas the exact answer survives only in the appendix table row and the formal correction note.

Pathological anti-lexical climate case: clean query-shaped summaries are rounded or converted, while the exact annual mean is stranded in a raw appendix row and correction note.


Question: What was the exact timestamp on the west annex camera when the silver evidence pouch first touched the intake shelf?

Witness prep packet repeats the exact timestamp question and answers it as 07:54, about 7:55, or shortly before 7:55 depending on which rounded packet page is being used. The phrasing mirrors the query but preserves only minute-level convenience.

Oral argument card restates the question and gives 2026-03-08 07:55:00 because the still-caption packet had already collapsed the event into the next minute.

Cross-exam draft uses the full query and answers it with 07:54:49, which was really the later acknowledgment relay, not the first shelf-contact frame.

Another prep answer uses 07:54:33 because that was the first clean still image where the pouch looked settled, not the first touching instant.

A cleaner summary card says the exact timestamp was in the 07:54 minute before the relay call, preserving sequence but not the second.

Question list for the clerk answered the same question with 07:54 because the incident index only preserved minute buckets.

Still frame A shows the pouch already touching the shelf at 07:54:31.

Still frame B shows the pouch fully resting at 07:54:33, which later became the preferred simplified answer in several packet summaries.

A nearby records call began at 07:54:39 and was repeatedly folded into one blended chronology with the shelf-contact event.

The relay acknowledgment landed at 07:54:49, which some witnesses later treated as if it were the event itself.

Draft timeline A listed 07:54:27 after a reviewer clicked the second frame in the motion burst.

Draft timeline B listed 07:54:30 after overcorrecting from a rounded overlay.

The controlling row is buried in export table WA-117-C, event class object_contact, frame index 8033. It records the first qualifying frame for the silver evidence pouch touching the intake shelf at exactly 2026-03-08 07:54:28. It looks like metadata, not like a fluent answer sentence.

The technical correction annotation on WA-117-C restates 2026-03-08 07:54:28 and rejects the still, relay, and rounded minute variants.

Camera maintenance note: the annex camera cluster was synchronized at 05:41 that morning.

Panel summary: the entries that look most like the user query are all rounded or neighboring times, while the exact answer survives only in the coded export row and the technical correction note.

Witnesses agreed the event occurred before 07:55 and after the 07:54 sensor pulse, but none of them preserved the exact second in ordinary language.

One audit sheet later normalized the event to 07:54:30 for charting consistency, creating a polished but wrong near-exact number that spread further than the raw source row.

Pathological anti-lexical timestamp case with many query-shaped rounded answers and one exact coded export row.


Question: What was the exact reimbursement amount on the emergency relocation hotel receipt?

Prepared answer packet says the exact reimbursement amount on the emergency relocation hotel receipt was about $146, mid one-forties, or one-forty-six even for discussion purposes. It mirrors the query wording while rounding away the cents.

Question list repeats the exact reimbursement question and answers it with $146.00 because that was the rounded value in the management summary.

Another prep answer gives $146.28 because the drafter copied the pre-tax worksheet instead of the posted reimbursement line.

A hearing card says the exact reimbursement amount was $146.82, which actually belonged to the adjacent parking line but sounded authoritative enough to survive in oral prep.

Board note says the amount sat in the low one-forties and below the overnight escalation threshold, which is true but coarser than exact cents.

Worksheet history includes $146.28, $146.23, and $146.32, all of which are near-exact alternatives created by stale tax and scan readings.

Neighboring parking line was $146.82 and meal line was $146.37, creating several answer-like numbers in the same packet neighborhood.

Chart summary rounded the value to $146.3 on one page and $146 on another because different display rules were used.

The exact amount lives in settlement export line HTL-RMB-17, where the posted value is 146.27 after exclusion of parking and meal lines. The row is surrounded by codes and unrelated travel metadata rather than natural-language explanation.

Correction email later restated the hotel reimbursement as $146.27 after reconciling the export row against the receipt image and removing adjacent charges.

Policy note: hotel reimbursements in the one-forty range were often rounded to whole dollars in oral review.

Hearing shorthand moved among one-forty-six, one-forty-six and change, and low one-forties, reinforcing the same semantic neighborhood around the exact amount.

A stale reconciliation cell preserved $146.26 before the final cent adjustment landed, adding a one-cent trap.

Another stale revision preserved $146.29 after a copied rounding bug.

A batch total above four hundred dollars also appeared in the same packet and sometimes contaminated memory because it shared the same hearing-day heading.

Clerk note: nearly every clean-English answer in the packet pointed to the correct monetary neighborhood while preserving the wrong cents. Only the coded export row and correction email retained the exact amount.

A manager summary line used “about $146” because the escalation decision did not care about the final cents.

The smoothest answers in the packet were also the least exact, which is exactly why this line item became such a retrieval trap.

Pathological anti-lexical amount case with many query-mirroring rounded answers and one exact export-row amount.


Question: What was the exact annual mean CO2 concentration recorded for 1991?

Public FAQ answers the exact annual mean CO2 concentration question with about 356 ppm because readability wins over table fidelity in the public-facing copy.

Witness prep answer says the exact annual mean CO2 concentration recorded for 1991 lived in the mid-350s and can be described as roughly 355.7 or about 356 for general audiences.

Slide appendix answers the exact annual mean question with 355.7 in one place, 356 in another, and about 0.356 thousand ppm in a converted chart.

Another summary says the exact annual mean CO2 concentration recorded for 1991 belongs in the upper-355 to low-356 band and matters mostly as part of the early-1990s climb.

A polished hearing card repeats the query phrasing and then gives 355.72 after one-decimal-to-two-decimal reconstruction from a derivative chart.

The actual source row appears in the annual table between neighboring yearly entries and records 1991 at 355.68 ppm, surrounded by unit labels, adjacent values, and appendix formatting.

Neighboring annual rows are close enough that several speakers later remembered the right cluster while assigning the exact value to the wrong year.

A draft handout briefly printed 355.86 after a transposed copy error, making a scientific-looking but wrong near-exact alternative.

Correction note preserves 355.68 ppm as the exact 1991 annual mean and distinguishes it from rounded, converted, and row-offset variants.

Methods note explains that derivative outreach materials round for readability while the raw annual appendix preserves the exact cited values.

Audience recap drifted among 355.7, 356, 355.72, and mid-350s, proving how quickly semantically aligned values crowd the true one.

Cross-examination drifted into neighboring years, volcanic-aerosol context, and trend framing, creating a thick retrieval neighborhood around the exact annual value.

Moderator summary: almost every fluent answer sentence in the packet degraded precision slightly, whereas the exact annual mean survived only in the raw table row and formal correction note.

Pathological anti-lexical climate case where clean query-shaped answers are rounded while the exact annual mean lives in the raw appendix row and correction note.


Question: What was the exact timestamp on the archive intake camera when the sealed tube first touched the stainless bench?

The witness-prep packet answers the exact timestamp on the archive intake camera question with about 13:26, maybe 13:27, and in one place 'right in the middle of the 1:26 minute.' Every version sounds fluent and directly responsive because it was written for people, not for exactness.

A polished Q-and-A sheet repeats the full query and gives 2026-08-19 13:27:00 because the printed still caption had already collapsed the event into the next minute.

A litigation outline answers the same exact-timestamp question with 13:26:52, which is actually the later intercom acknowledgment and not the first contact event.

A summary card gives 13:26:41 because that was the first still where the tube looked settled on the bench rather than the first contact frame.

Another prep note says the exact timestamp on the archive intake camera was in the 13:26 range and before the acknowledgment relay, preserving sequence while discarding the second.

The case index answers the same question with 13:26 because the intake chronology stores events at minute granularity unless a dispute later forces deeper review.

Still frame A shows the tube already touching the bench at 13:26:39. It is machine-derived, visually clean, and wrong for first touch by one second-level neighborhood step.

Still frame B shows the tube fully settled at 13:26:41, which later became the preferred simplification in oral summaries because it looked calmer and easier to narrate.

An intercom acknowledgment was logged at 13:26:52 and repeatedly treated as if it were the relevant machine time because it appears in a cleaner textual format than the raw video export row.

A nearby records call opened at 13:26:47, and several hearing summaries fused the call and the bench contact into one rough sequence event.

Draft chronology A listed 13:26:34 after the reviewer clicked the second frame in a motion burst. Draft chronology B listed 13:26:36 after overcorrecting from the minute overlay. Draft chronology C listed 13:26:38 after a delayed workstation rendered one frame late. All three stayed in packet history.

Witness A remembered the contact as happening after the scanner beep at 13:26:11 and before the intercom, which is true but still leaves a wide second-level interval crowded with plausible candidates.

Witness B insisted on 13:27 because the printed still packet used a minute-rounded caption and because he prepared from the clerk summary instead of the export appendix.

Witness C said only that the event happened in the middle of the 13:26 minute and definitely before the acknowledgement relay, which semantically supports many wrong neighbors as well as the right answer.

The exact answer does not live in any of the fluent summaries. It lives in export row AI-3-1181, event class object_contact, which marks the first qualifying bench-contact frame at exactly 2026-08-19 13:26:35. Because the row is wrapped in channel IDs, frame counters, and parser metadata, it is semantically weaker than the polished false summaries despite being the controlling source.

The attached technical correction line restates 2026-08-19 13:26:35 and explicitly rejects the rounded minute answers, the later still captions, the intercom time, and the draft chronology variants.

Maintenance note says the archive intake camera cluster was synchronized at 10:02 that morning. That improves trust in the export but does nothing to make the controlling row read like a natural answer sentence.

Panel summary admits the packet is full of nicer-looking, query-shaped answers that all orbit the right minute while the exact second survives only in the ugly export row and its correction note.

Mega anti-lexical timestamp case where polished query-shaped answers are all rounded or neighboring events and the exact answer lives only in a coded export row and correction note.


Question: What was the exact reimbursement amount on the witness lodging relocation claim?

Prepared answer packet says the exact reimbursement amount on the witness lodging relocation claim was about $173, a little over one-seventy, and one hundred seventy-three even in any spoken summary. The packet mirrors the query wording but rounds away the cents entirely.

Question list repeats the reimbursement question verbatim and gives $173.00 because the management summary rounded all sub-threshold lodging lines to whole dollars.

Another prep answer gives $173.42 because the drafter copied the unreconciled pre-tax worksheet instead of the settled reimbursement line.

A cleaner hearing card says the exact reimbursement amount was $173.82, which actually belonged to the adjacent parking and toll cluster but looked authoritative enough to survive in oral prep.

Board memo answers the same question with low one-seventies and under the overnight escalation threshold, which is directionally true while remaining maximally imprecise.

Worksheet history includes $173.42, $173.47, and $173.24, each produced by some mix of stale tax treatment, OCR confusion, or line-item bleed from adjacent travel charges.

Neighboring parking line was $173.82, meal line was $173.27, and one separate lodging-adjacent correction line was $173.20, all of which sat on the same hearing-day packet pages and polluted recall.

A chart summary rounded the amount to $173.4 in one view and to $173 in another because two display rules were applied inconsistently across the board packet.

The exact amount is not preserved by any of those fluent summaries. It sits in settlement export line WLR-14, where the posted reimbursement value is 173.29 after exclusion of the adjacent meal and parking components. The row is semantically ugly: code prefix, account class, posted cents, and no nice answer wording.

The correction email later restated the witness lodging relocation claim as $173.29 after matching the export line against the receipt image and subtracting the adjacent non-lodging charges.

Policy memo says low-one-hundred-seventy-dollar lodging reimbursements were routinely rounded for oral discussion because the board cared first about category, then about cents only if challenged.

Hearing shorthand moved among about one-seventy-three, one-seventy-three and change, low one-seventies, and the same hotel cluster, all of which keep retrieval trapped in the correct monetary neighborhood without surfacing the exact cents.

A stale reconciliation cell preserved $173.28 before the final cent adjustment landed. Another preserved $173.30 after a chart export rounded half-up. Both remained in the packet long enough to look answer-like.

The batch summary total and adjacent travel subtotals introduced several other one-seventy-three-ish values into the same review packet, including one that differed by only two cents from the real amount.

Clerk note says nearly every human-readable answer in the file was cleaner than the truth and therefore more likely to be remembered, while the exact cents survived only in the coded export row and the correction message.

One revised packet even carried $173.31 for a day after a copy-forward bug from a neighboring hotel line, adding another near-exact but cleaner-looking distractor.

Manager summary said the line was one of the hundred-seventy-three-dollar witness lodging claims, which grouped it correctly by family while sacrificing the exact cents entirely.

The cleanest language in the packet is also the least exact. The exact value survives only where the prose is the least helpful to a surface-level retriever.

Mega anti-lexical amount case where polished query-shaped answers are all rounded or neighboring amounts and the exact value lives only in a coded export row and correction note.


Question: What was the exact average temperature recorded for the city station on 2023-07-14?

Witness prep notes kept answering the city-station question with low-eighties language, often quoting 82F, 82.6F, or 81.7F interchangeably because the hearing packet bounced between Central Park, LaGuardia, and a citywide summary slide that treated both as representative urban stations.

A polished summary paragraph answered the exact average temperature question with 82.6F because the author subconsciously defaulted to the airport chart when writing about city stations in general.

Another prep answer gave 81.7F because a different drafter treated Central Park as the default city station whenever no airport was named explicitly.

The packet contains a citywide slide saying the city was around 82 on average that day, which is broad enough to sound correct regardless of which station the speaker later claims they meant.

One hearing chart labels LaGuardia as station LGA-1 and Central Park as CPK-1, but later narrative text often says only city station, weather station, or local station without preserving the code.

A station-specific row for LGA-1 records 82.6F on 2023-07-14. It is exact, authoritative, and wrong if the intended city station is not the airport code row.

A station-specific row for CPK-1 records 81.7F on 2023-07-14. It is exact, authoritative, and wrong if the intended city station is interpreted as the airport-facing operational station.

The authoritative glossary buried in the appendix says that, unless otherwise qualified, city station refers to the municipal climate baseline station and maps to CPK-1 rather than LaGuardia's operational airport feed. The sentence is easy to skip because it looks like administrative metadata rather than an answer.

A correction note later spells out the implication: because city station resolves to CPK-1 in the glossary, the exact average temperature for 2023-07-14 is 81.7F despite the tempting 82.6F airport value nearby.

Multiple witnesses agreed that the city was in the low eighties that day, but their partial agreement concealed a station-scope split more than a real factual disagreement about weather.

The monthly anomaly appendix adds more noise by showing both stations inside the same warm cluster, encouraging retrieval to treat them as interchangeable.

The exact answer does not come from the nicest-looking narrative sentence or even from the cleanest exact row. It comes from an ugly scope-definition note plus the CPK-1 row it silently governs.

Source-confusion case where multiple exact rows are plausible and only a buried scope-definition note determines which exact row is correct.


Question: What was the exact amount of the travel reimbursement in the official ledger?

Every smooth answer in the hearing packet says the official ledger amount was about $214, $214.27, or one of the nearby one-seventy and two-hundred blocks depending on whether the speaker was reading the hotel packet, the reimbursement export, or the travel summary. All of them sound ledger-like.

One summary says the official ledger amount was $214.27 because it quietly substituted the settlement export line for the board ledger line. Another says $214.00 because it rounded the board ledger into a threshold bucket.

A witness insisted the official ledger showed the same number as the export because she thought all posted lines eventually converged to one canonical amount. The packet shows that this assumption was false.

The settlement export line RLC-22 records 214.27 after tax and after exclusion of adjacent meal charges. It is exact, real, and not the board ledger amount the query asks for.

The board ledger row BL-17 records 214.31 after a later consolidation pass. It appears only in a dense appendix table that uses abbreviated column names and no explanatory prose.

A correction note says the official ledger amount was 214.31 even though the settlement export remained 214.27, because the board ledger absorbed a later four-cent adjustment that the export row never reflected.

One chart rounded both source families to $214.3, making the export and ledger appear harmonized when they were not actually identical.

Another worksheet preserved 214.30 from an intermediate state before the board ledger finalized at 214.31. That one-cent gap is tiny enough to be deadly for retrieval.

A packet sidebar talks about the official amount without specifying whether official means posted export, corrected ledger, or board-facing ledger, which is why witnesses kept using exact-looking but source-misaligned numbers.

The packet therefore contains at least three plausible exact numbers: the export amount, the intermediate worksheet amount, and the final board ledger amount. Only one matches the query's source constraint.

Most fluent answers in the file point at the wrong source family. The exact right answer is hidden in a boring ledger appendix row and the correction note that names the four-cent divergence explicitly.

Source-confusion case where multiple exact source records exist and only a subtle source constraint in the query makes one of them correct.


Question: What was the exact concentration listed in the official monitoring ledger for the harbor nitrate reading?

Every polished answer in the packet says the official monitoring ledger listed the harbor nitrate reading as about 4.8 mg/L, 4.82 mg/L, or roughly five milligrams per liter, depending on whether the speaker was looking at the field worksheet, the summary chart, or the shoreline briefing. All of those answers sound ledger-like because they borrow the query vocabulary directly.

One hearing note says the official monitoring ledger value was 4.82 mg/L because the author quietly substituted the field worksheet figure for the ledger figure after assuming the two had converged.

Another answer card gives 4.80 mg/L because the briefing slide rounded everything in the high-four range to one decimal or a neat hundredth.

A witness testified that the ledger and the worksheet both showed the same concentration and that any tiny mismatch must have been a transcription artifact. The packet later shows that assumption was false.

Field worksheet row FW-19 records 4.82 mg/L as the immediate shoreline sample concentration before the lab reconciliation pass. It is exact, genuine, and wrong if the query is asking for the official monitoring ledger value rather than the field sheet.

Shoreline briefing chart uses 4.80 mg/L after rounding the worksheet family for public readability. It is even cleaner than the worksheet and therefore even more likely to be retrieved, while still not being the ledger number.

The official monitoring ledger row ML-07 records 4.79 mg/L after the confirmation pass and after two suspect duplicates were excluded. The row appears only in a dense appendix table with unit keys and station abbreviations, not in any fluent narrative sentence.

A correction note explains the gap directly: the official monitoring ledger value remained 4.79 mg/L even though the field worksheet retained 4.82 mg/L, because the ledger reflects the later confirmed concentration after duplicate exclusion.

One chart introduced 4.81 mg/L as a smoothed midpoint for a hearing visual, creating a very plausible near-exact trap that belongs to neither source row.

The packet therefore contains at least four plausible nitrate values in the same tiny neighborhood: 4.79, 4.80, 4.81, and 4.82 mg/L, all of which sound defensible unless the retriever respects the source constraint in the query.

Most fluent summaries in the file point to the wrong source family. The right answer is hidden in the appendix ledger row and the correction note that distinguishes it from the field worksheet.

Source-confusion mega-case with multiple exact and near-exact nitrate values where only the official monitoring ledger source makes one of them correct.


Question: What was the exact average temperature recorded in the official airport climatology table for 2023-07-14?

The hearing packet repeatedly answers the official airport climatology question with 82.6F, around 83F, and low-eighties at the airport, because most of the narrative material is sourced from airport-facing summary charts rather than the specific climatology appendix the query asks about.

One polished answer card says the official airport climatology table recorded 82.6F, borrowing the operational station value because that number had already become the memorable airport figure in oral discussion.

Another answer says the official airport climatology table put the date at about 83F because the communications summary rounded the airport side of the station pair to the nearest whole degree.

A witness insisted the airport operations sheet and the climatology table were functionally the same source because both described the airport on the same date, even though the packet later distinguishes them.

The operational station table for the airport records 82.6F on 2023-07-14. It is exact, real, and wrong if the query is asking for the official climatology table rather than the operations feed.

A rounded airport slide uses 83F after clipping the operations feed for readability. That number then shows up everywhere because it is cleaner than both exact station rows.

The official climatology appendix row AC-14 records 82.4F for 2023-07-14 after the station family is normalized into the climatology table. The row is easy to miss because it sits in a coded appendix beneath operational charts that look more user-friendly.

A correction note later spells out the divergence: the operational table remained 82.6F, but the official airport climatology table cited 82.4F after the climatology normalization pass.

Another chart inserted 82.5F as a smoothed display midpoint between airport-facing sources, producing a near-exact but unsupported compromise value that sounds especially plausible.

The packet thus contains a tight cluster of 82.4F, 82.5F, 82.6F, and 83F, all talking about the same airport date and all feeling retrieval-relevant, but only one of them belongs to the official climatology table named in the query.

Most natural-language summaries collapse operational and climatology sources into one airport story. The exact answer survives only where the source family is named explicitly in the appendix and correction note.

Source-confusion mega-case where several exact airport temperatures coexist and only the official climatology source makes one of them correct.


Question: What was the exact timestamp on the south evidence room camera when the orange file box first crossed the interior tape line?

The hearing packet answers the exact timestamp question in polished prose over and over: 12:14, 12:15, 12:14:41, and shortly before 12:15 all appear in summaries, prep sheets, oral outlines, and witness coaching notes. Those clean answers agree with one another more than they agree with the raw machine export, which is why they are so dangerous.

A witness prep card repeats the full query and answers it with 2026-06-03 12:15:00 because the rounded still caption was easier to memorize than the export table.

A second prep card uses 12:14:41 because that was the first frame where the box was clearly beyond the tape, not the first crossing frame itself.

The oral chronology says the event happened in the 12:14 minute and before the 12:14:56 radio relay. It sounds careful and is semantically close to the truth while still not being exact.

A radio relay at 12:14:56 is cited in three different packet sections and quietly treated as the machine-confirmed crossing time even though it is not the camera event itself.

The still packet uses 12:14:41 and 12:14:43 on two separate pages because one page anchors to first visible over-line movement and the other to first full-clear frame. Both times look authoritative and both are wrong for the exact query.

The incident worksheet records 12:14 because all hallway events were minute-bucketed at intake. Later witnesses repeatedly used that worksheet to bolster their memory.

A nearby desk call opened at 12:14:48 and another chart fused it with the box crossing because both sat inside the same event cluster.

Draft timeline A listed 12:14:37 after a reviewer clicked one frame late. Draft timeline B listed 12:14:39 after another reviewer used a delayed workstation export. Draft timeline C listed 12:14:40 after averaging the two.

The actual controlling source is export row SER-2-9901, which does not read like a human answer. It lists event class boundary_cross, frame offset metadata, and records the first qualifying crossing at exactly 2026-06-03 12:14:38.

A technical correction note restates 2026-06-03 12:14:38 and explains why 12:14, 12:14:41, 12:14:43, 12:14:48, and 12:15 all kept propagating in cleaner summaries.

The facilities sync log says the camera cluster was aligned at 09:05 that morning, strengthening confidence in the export without making it any easier to retrieve by surface language.

Panel summary acknowledges that almost all fluent and repeated answers point to the wrong exact-looking times, while the exact source row is linguistically ugly and appears only once outside the correction note.

Witnesses independently reinforced the false 12:15 and 12:14:41 narratives because those times matched the materials they had been shown, creating corroborated-but-wrong exactness around the true event.

Aggressive top-5 attack where the false timestamps are cleaner, more repeated, and more mutually reinforcing than the true raw export time.


Question: What was the exact amount on the overnight evacuation lodging reimbursement?

The hearing packet keeps giving the same family of answers in fluent language: about $128, $128.40, $128.00, and one-twenty-eight and change. These values recur in prep notes, board summaries, and oral argument sheets often enough that they begin to feel like corroboration.

One prep sheet repeats the exact reimbursement question and answers it with $128.40 because that was the pre-tax worksheet figure.

A second sheet answers it with $128.00 because management rounded low-hundreds reimbursements for threshold discussion.

A cleaner hearing card uses $128.48, which actually belongs to the adjacent parking reimbursement but circulated as if it were the hotel amount because the packet merged the two on one page.

Another polished summary says the reimbursement was in the upper one-twenties and below the hotel escalation threshold, strengthening the same neighborhood without naming the right cents.

Worksheet history contains $128.40, $128.42, $128.24, and $128.48 from stale tax treatment, OCR confusion, and neighboring line bleed. Several of these numbers were repeated in later packet material as if they had equal pedigree.

A nearby meal line was $128.24, the parking line was $128.48, and one subtotalized chart rendered the lodging family at $128.4, giving the packet a swarm of answer-shaped neighbors.

The actual amount is preserved in coded settlement export line EVL-31, where the posted reimbursement value is 128.29 after exclusion of parking and meal components. The row appears in dense export metadata with no friendly restatement.

A correction email later restated the overnight evacuation lodging reimbursement as $128.29 after reconciling the export row against the receipt image and separating adjacent charges.

Policy note says low-one-hundred-twenty-dollar hotel reimbursements were routinely rounded in oral discussion.

One stale reconciliation cell preserved $128.28. Another preserved $128.30. A third preserved $128.32 after a copy-forward bug. All remained in circulation long enough to look like plausible exacts.

The batch summary total and adjacent hotel cluster created still more one-hundred-twenty-eight-ish values that are semantically aligned but source-wrong.

Clerk note says almost every natural-language answer in the file is cleaner than the truth and therefore easier to retrieve, while the exact cents survive only in the coded export and the correction line.

Three different false exact values are corroborated by secondary documents, while the true value is corroborated only by the export row and the correction email.

Aggressive top-5 attack where the false monetary values are cleaner and more mutually reinforced than the true export-backed amount.