Audit of draft articles and revisions applied

Audit categories reviewed: spelling, clarity, chronology, framing, misinformation, misidentification, out_of_context, quantitative precision, process clarity, context clarity, agency clarity, question emphasis, omission, bias, duplicate.

Findings and fixes applied:

- Misinformation / unverified claims: The draft reported a resident's allegation that a federal lawsuit had been filed. The revised articles present that as an allegation by Alina Pringle and note it was not verified during the meeting.

- Quantitative precision: Grant amounts were stated in the transcript as approximate. Revised articles use "approximately" and record the $600,000 and $200,000 figures as approximate and the combined figure as an estimate.

- Legal status clarity: The town attorney's clarification that existing uses would be legal nonconforming until rezoning was emphasized in the ordinance article to avoid implying immediate changes to property rights.

- Attribution lock and speaker mapping: All attributions in articles map to the meeting's speaker list; no statements are attributed to speakers who did not speak in the transcript.

- Chronology and framing: Each article notes whether matters were formal votes, direction only, or procedural (e.g., tabling). The ordinance article records the unanimous votes; the park article notes Council direction without a formal appropriation.

After these corrections the articles were rechecked against the audit checklist and no remaining high-severity issues were found.