Audit of draft articles vs. transcript and style rules

spelling: []

clarity: []

chronology: []

framing: []

misinformation: [{"type":"unverified_county_enforcement_claim","description":"Applicant stated Canyon County may involve the prosecuting attorney; the claim was reported in the article but not verified during the hearing.","severity":"medium"}]

misidentification: [{"type":"name_discrepancy","description":"Agenda names the applicants as 'Joshua and Michelle Reumann' (SEG 412) but the speaking applicant identified as 'Josh Josh Ruman' (SEG 417). The draft flagged both names and noted the discrepancy rather than choosing one spelling.","severity":"high"},{"type":"unclear_mover_second","description":"Transcript audio and text do not clearly identify the mover/second for several motions; the articles avoid inventing mover/second and mark as 'not specified'.","severity":"medium"}]

out_of_context: []

Quantitative precision: [{"type":"vote_tally_missing","description":"The roll-call votes were recorded as affirmative in the transcript but individual tallies by name and exact counts were not clearly extractable; articles state 'motion carried' and avoid fabricated tallies.","severity":"medium"}]

Process clarity: [{"type":"private_road_ownership","description":"Resident raised concern about private road repair; staff clarified road is private and would not be annexed — article preserves that distinction.","severity":"low"}]

Context clarity: []

Agency clarity: []

Question emphasis: []

omission: []

bias: []

duplicate: []

Transcript Segment Error: []

Fixes applied in final revision: clarified name discrepancy explicitly in the Birch Lane article, avoided inventing mover/second or vote tallies, limited attributions to speakers explicitly named in the transcript, and preserved the appeal-period language for the CUP per the clerk's statement.