North Reading Room: Review of a Service Discrepancy

Reading copy · extract-RA-IR-1961-042-R01 · page 1

Reference release determination

To the consulting reader: The attached selection concerns service request Q-61-118 and subsequent review of entries in the North Reading Room ledger. The request for this selection was initiated by the Office of Collections & Special Studies. No application from an external reader was required.

Eight attachments are supplied, comprising twelve released pages including this determination and its schedule. Original dates and local pagination have been retained in the transcriptions. The release folio appears separately at the foot of each page.

The selection contains a request counterfoil, ledger extracts, a witnessed procedure, a personnel review, and correspondence concerning reference-copy circulation. Inclusion in one release establishes their administrative association. It does not make the documents contemporaneous.

An original instruction leaf, listed separately as Enclosure IX, remains in administrative use. It is not a missing page of this release. No digital image of that enclosure is supplied.

Please retain disagreements between sources in your notes. A convenient chronology should not replace the chronology the records actually give.

M. Avery · Records & Access

Reference use authorised. Disclosure does not terminate custody.

Reading copy · extract-RA-IR-1961-042-R02 · page 1

Thursday, 12 October 1961 · leaf 74

[Left margin, graphite: 'Enter against request time. E.V. to explain. H.B. 13/x.']

[Below entry, blue ink: 'The first time is the time at which the volume was supplied. I have not altered the second entry. E. Vale.']

Transcription note: the two entries for Q-61-118 are on separate ruled lines. No erasure is visible in the reviewed record. The margin instruction is in a different hand.

Original page order retained. No chronological correction applied.

Reading copy · extract-RA-IR-1961-042-R03 · page 1

Reader's request · retained counterfoil

[On reverse: 'Submitted at desk after examination of the shelf list. No advance request entered. L.M.']

The counterfoil remains in the numbered request book. Its sequence lies between Q-61-117 and Q-61-119. It was not detached for inclusion in the service ledger.

Release note: the reader-name field is withheld for personal information. No alteration has been made to the request number, time, table, reference or receiving initials. The withheld name is not required for comparison.

Compare with R02, leaf 74. Preserve both source citations.

Reading copy · extract-RA-IR-1961-042-R04 · page 1

Procedure record · AS/61/19

Purpose: examine the order of the service counterpart and the corresponding request without amendment of the service ledger. E. Vale was absent throughout. L. Marsh maintained the desk; T. Mercer observed for Applied Studies and A. Holt for Collections & Custody.

At 13:50 the desk clock and the observer's watch were compared against the reference clock. Their readings agreed to within fifteen seconds. Agreement was checked again at 14:20. A difference of eleven minutes cannot be accounted for by the recorded clock comparison.

At 14:02 a service counterpart bearing Q-61-124 and reference N.44/6 was found in the lower division of the brass request tray. It was enclosed, signed across the fold by both observers, and retained in their view. No corresponding request had been entered in the request book.

At 14:13 a request bearing Q-61-124 and reference N.44/6 was entered. The sealed counterpart was then opened and compared. Both observers recorded agreement of the request number and reference. The tray was removed from the desk at 14:31.

T. Mercer, Applied Studies / A. Holt, Collections & Custody

No claim concerning the originating cause is made by this memorandum.

Reading copy · extract-RA-IR-1961-042-R05 · page 1

Determination on the attribution to Edith Vale

The review concerns the annotation 'E.V. to explain' on ledger leaf 74 and the associated allegation of retrospective entry. It is not a determination of the cause of the recorded service order.

The counterfoil and the first ledger entry give different times. The same order was recorded on 19 October, with two named witnesses and while Vale was absent. The comparison memorandum directly undermines an attribution to her conduct. Its requested insertion into the personnel file cannot be confirmed.

The allegation is not sustained. The current description is amended to record that the discrepancy was observed independently of Vale. Her original ledger entries are preserved without correction.

This determination corrects the institutional attribution. It neither supplies an explanation for the eleven-minute interval nor retrospectively converts the comparison memorandum into a complete account of the events.

Reader citation: retain R02, R03 and R04 with this determination. A statement of the correction without its supporting sources is not an adequate replacement for the file.

M. Avery · Records & Access · 24 September 2026

Description amended. Source entries retained.

Reading copy · extract-RA-IR-1961-042-R06 · page 1

Distribution of the comparison record

The third reference copy is to remain with an independent reader. Neither recorded time is to be amended.

The independent reader need not attend the North Reading Room. An entry in the attendance book is unnecessary. Identification of the comparison is sufficient for the reference record; identification of the reader is not required.

Copies A and B are not independent of the originating institution. A further internal signature cannot replace copy C. The reference copy must retain the ordinary desk comparison as well as the tray observation.

Return of the reference copy is not required for continuation of custody.

[Review annotation, 2026: 'Public description retained under the service ledger. No separate application form required. Apply the current reference-copy procedure.']

Distribution authorised · OCSS

Do not reconcile the times for the convenience of circulation.

Reading copy · extract-RA-IR-1961-042-R07 · page 1

From Collections & Custody

To Applied Studies. Re: equipment receipt 43 and distribution sheet 3.

The equipment has been removed from ordinary service. Its two divisions are to remain empty. Staff have been advised that removing the apparatus from a room does not establish that every associated instruction has ceased to be applicable.

Your proposed reference set preserves the sequence of actions as well as the observed result. We ask whether a complete description of that sequence should be treated as ordinary correspondence. There is a distinction between recording an arrangement and placing the arrangement into further service.

We support correction of the attribution to Mrs Vale. We cannot support treating that correction as authorisation to repeat the procedure elsewhere. The negative comparison must accompany every copy.

A discrepancy is preferable to an unassigned consequence.

A. Holt · Collections & Custody · 24 October 1961

Receipt 43 remains open. Equipment removal acknowledged; closure not authorised.

Reading copy · extract-RA-IR-1961-042-R08 · page 1

Reference circulation · current routing

This slip describes the reference arrangement. It is not evidence that a message has been received by a member of staff.

An independently retained comparison may accompany the released sources. The office copy is not to be silently substituted for the reader's record. Subsequent editorial corrections require their own date and authority.

Closure of the equipment receipt and return of a reference copy are separate administrative acts. Neither is to be inferred from the other.

Reference routing approved · OCSS

Copy C remains in external custody.