Audit of draft articles vs. transcript

I reviewed the draft articles against the meeting transcript and the Issues Rules checklist. Key findings and fixes applied in revision are below.

Spelling: Transcript contained several inconsistent or unclear proper names (e.g., 'Cunningham' vs. 'Cuttingham'); I normalized to the spellings presented in the transcript where explicit. I used the supplied canonical spelling for the district: North Newton School Corp.

Clarity & misidentification: The transcript refers to both "Dr. Razer" (who spoke) and to "Dr. Mike" (referenced by others). The draft initially conflated those identities. Revision: I kept quotations and attributions strictly to the speaker names shown in the transcript and avoided assigning roles (like 'superintendent') unless the transcript explicitly said so.

Chronology: The articles preserve meeting order for reported items but front-loaded the most newsworthy facts (storm response; contract approval) per guidance.

Process clarity & omission: IU Lincoln contract was approved contingent on attorney review. I retained that contingency and added a follow-up task. Where vote tallies or mover/second details were not explicitly given in the transcript I preserved the transcript's phrasing (e.g., "motion carries," specific counts only where stated such as the disposal vote "5 to two").

Quantitative precision: Where dollar amounts or numbers were stated in the transcript (e.g., $1,500 fundraiser, $3,655 donation, $4,000 bus sale, roughly $9,000 IU Lincoln estimate), those are presented as quoted or described in the transcript; I marked the IU Lincoln amount as approximate.

Framing and bias: Articles are neutral in tone and avoid speculation about motives or outcomes beyond what the transcript shows.

Other categories reviewed: out_of_context, misinformation, duplicate, and bias returned no unresolved high-severity items after the clarifying edits described above.