Public attachment description
Personnel attribution review
A later review distinguishes a supported service discrepancy from an unsupported allegation against Edith Vale.
Reference deskReference copy available.
Begin with the short service file, or open the Working Record already kept by this browser.
Consult the short fileSearch signs and scriptsDigital access
- Personnel attribution reviewPDF · 1 page · 131 KBOpen PDF
Part of Reference release 01 · 27 September 2026. Source dates, release folios and editorial annotations are distinguished in the reading copy below.
Complete accessible reading copy
Transcription
Reading copy · RA-IR-1961-042-R05 · page 1
Determination on the attribution to Edith Vale
The review concerns the annotation 'E.V. to explain' on ledger leaf 74 and the associated allegation of retrospective entry. It is not a determination of the cause of the recorded service order.
The counterfoil and the first ledger entry give different times. The same order was recorded on 19 October, with two named witnesses and while Vale was absent. The comparison memorandum directly undermines an attribution to her conduct. Its requested insertion into the personnel file cannot be confirmed.
The allegation is not sustained. The current description is amended to record that the discrepancy was observed independently of Vale. Her original ledger entries are preserved without correction.
This determination corrects the institutional attribution. It neither supplies an explanation for the eleven-minute interval nor retrospectively converts the comparison memorandum into a complete account of the events.
Reader citation: retain R02, R03 and R04 with this determination. A statement of the correction without its supporting sources is not an adequate replacement for the file.
M. Avery · Records & Access · 24 September 2026
Description amended. Source entries retained.