# Synthetic continuity-audit sample
Public demonstration, not a customer engagement. Entirely invented for this sample; no Ghostheim lore or client material. AI-generated source and analysis. This short example demonstrates format, not performance on a 5,000-word packet.

## Source packet: The Bell Archive
[S1] The archive's only key is held by Mara from sunrise until sunset. No duplicate exists during that interval.
[S2] At noon, Iven unlocks the archive with a duplicate key while Mara remains across town with the original.
[S3] Mara privately discovers that the blue ledger is forged. She tells nobody and leaves no message.
[S4] Before meeting Mara or examining the ledger, Iven tells the council: “Mara has proved the blue ledger is forged.” No source for his statement is supplied.
[S5] The council bans ferry traffic after a bridge collapses. The account does not describe how ferries contributed to the collapse or why the ban was imposed.
[S6] A sealed letter names the bridge inspector. Nobody has opened it by the end of the account.

## Prioritized findings
1. **High — direct contradiction [S1–S2].** The duplicate exists during the interval in which duplicates are explicitly excluded. This is not merely an unexplained theft of the original. Minimal options: remove the duplicate and change the entry method, or revise S1 to describe Mara's belief rather than an objective fact. Either changes the packet and requires the author's choice.
2. **Medium — unsupported knowledge attribution [S3–S4].** Iven claims knowledge of Mara's private conclusion without a supplied route. His statement could be a bluff or independently informed; it does not itself prove that he knows. Clarify whether this is a deliberate mystery before repairing it. Optional minimal repair: identify the line as a guess, leaving the council free to doubt it.
3. **Medium — missing causal explanation [S5].** The ban follows the collapse, but chronology alone does not establish its rationale. An emergency policy, mistaken inference, or political pretext could explain it. None is currently established. Optional repair: add the council's stated reason, clearly distinguished from the true cause of the collapse.
4. **Open choice, not an error [S6].** The letter's contents are a potential evidence route. Do not place the inspector's identity in anyone's knowledge merely because the narrator describes the letter.

## Knowledge matrix at the end of the packet
| Participant | Established access | Not established |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Mara | Original key; private forgery discovery | Iven's source or motive; letter contents |
| Iven | Archive entry is asserted, though its means conflict; makes the council statement | Genuine knowledge of Mara's discovery; letter contents |
| Council | Receives Iven's claim; imposes ban | Verification of forgery; true collapse cause; letter contents |

## Clarification questions
- Is the key rule objective or Mara's mistaken understanding?
- Is Iven lying, inferring, or using an omitted source?
- Is the council's rationale intentionally concealed?

## Scope and limits
No rewrite has been enacted. These are four findings and optional repairs, not a guarantee of exhaustive detection. Intentional ambiguity should remain intentional. A full audit would retain exact references to the supplied packet and distinguish narrator facts, testimony, inference, and unresolved choices in the same way.