PUBLIC RECORDS · COPIES AND METADATA
The format of a supplied copy can affect what dates, headers, attachments and other context a reader can check.
WHAT NEEDS TO BE RECONCILED
For the call-detail-record request, the City explained how it interpreted the requested date range and later supplied replacement material. The request, estimate, payment, initial delivery and replacement have distinct dates and must be compared separately.
Kyle says the replacement call-detail material still did not match the period or format he requested. That is his dispute about this production; the email, inspection and compensation files below raise different format questions.
The available call-detail copies do not, by themselves, establish the source system’s full export capability, every row it retained or the cause of a mismatch. Compare the request and each delivered copy before concluding what was or was not produced.
Each item below has its own source and limits; none is established by the call-detail-record comparison alone.
A printable email can show the message body while leaving native headers, attachments or source-mailbox context unverified. The available copies do not establish whether a native original was retained or supplied in a separate production.
Compare email-copy evidence and limits ↗The properties of an inspected PDF describe that copy and its export. They do not identify every earlier source file, prove who created an original, or establish intentional alteration.
Read the inspection-file entry and sources ↗A supplied compensation copy may preserve visible figures without the editable structure or metadata of a native file. Its request and delivery history must be checked on their own terms.
Read the compensation-file entry and sources ↗DATED RECORDS
Kyle raises differing call-log formats and requests a replacement March 4-forward production, accepting a further fee under protest. Reviewed files include older vendor CDR workbooks, newer City PBX exports and a later CSV delivery.
Read source links and limits →The June 15 invoice charges one hour/$15 for the separate CDR update. Kyle subsequently confirmed he paid the second $15.
Read source links and limits →The 14-page annual inspection packet supplied July 23 lacks a standard PDF document-information dictionary and XMP metadata stream. The complaint-inspection packet supplied the same day also lacks those containers. These copies limit verification of creator, producer and creation-date fields.
Read source links and limits →The City transmits Call log.csv for the May 31–July 24 request. The invoice and receipt record a $15 sale. Kyle asks for the original vendor transmittal with the attachment intact.
Read source links and limits →The two PDFs lack standard information/XMP containers. Five Office files have blank or absent creator and lastModifiedBy fields and September 15 core timestamps. The saved SharePoint listing names Webster under Modified By. All seven files byte-match the delivered ZIP.
Read source links and limits →SOURCES FOR THIS GUIDE
The links below cover different records and productions. A readable copy confirms access to that copy; it does not settle whether its native version, headers, metadata or requested scope were supplied.