I reviewed the draft articles against the meeting transcript and the Issues Rules. The audit flagged these items and revisions were applied in the final articles.

1) Spelling and name consistency: The transcript contains both "Jeff Howells" and "Jeff Howes," and both "Claesel" and "Claizelle." I standardized on "Jeff Howes" for the HPC member (used where the transcript described an HPC member) and "Claesel" for the theater based on repeated usages; where the transcript shows alternate spellings I preserved the fact of variation in the audit notes but used a single normalized spelling in the articles to avoid confusion.

2) Attribution and role clarity: The first reference to Heather is presented as "Heather (planning staff)" because the transcript identifies her role as planning department staff but does not give a last name. Quotes are attributed only to speakers named in the transcript.

3) Legal and procedural clarity: Where commissioners discussed a potential bona fide purchaser argument, the articles report that as an assertion raised by a commissioner and as staff noting they had sent an earlier notice to the auctioneer; no legal conclusion was stated and no enforcement action was claimed.

4) Timeline and provenance: Each article includes transcript segment provenance (topicintro/topicfinish) and the timeline entries map to the segments where the topics began and ended.

No changes were made that introduced facts not present in the transcript; ambiguous or missing details (exact auction date, exact dates of prior notices) are reported as "not specified" or left as staff follow-up items.