Source-provenance question
The City authored the underlying park-exclusion letter and possessed the clean original. Its later evidence materials nevertheless included a screenshot derivative containing an outside red-circle annotation.
This page documents the three available versions and the source-provenance question that remains unresolved: how did the annotated derivative enter the City’s evidence chain?
Three-stage visual sequence
Each version below shows the same underlying City letter. The annotation is absent from the public version, appears in the privately received version, and also appears in the City-produced evidence version.
PUBLIC — UNANNOTATED
Publicly posted version
PRIVATE — ANNOTATED
Privately received annotated version
CITY EVIDENCE — ANNOTATED
City-produced evidence version
Enlarged comparison
The interactive comparisons below normalize the detail crops onto a shared canvas for easier review. The images preserve aspect ratio; the normalized canvases do not mean the source files are byte-identical.
Public unannotated detail · City-produced annotated detail
Privately received annotated detail · City-produced annotated detail
Technical comparison
The privately received and City-produced copies currently available are not the same byte-for-byte digital file. They have different image dimensions, file sizes, and cryptographic hashes.
Visually, however, they reproduce the same distinctive screenshot and red-circle annotation. This is consistent with the copies sharing an annotated source or derivative lineage, including the possibility that one copy was resized, recompressed, downloaded, or re-exported during transmission or production.
Technical file comparison
| Source label | Format | Dimensions | Byte size | SHA-256 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public-post reference copy | PNG | 1320 × 2868 | 871,171 bytes | 5514a3a645b772835e1e4cdccf711ed374c4a7c56ee009e04ba23c61241c7de0 |
| Privately received intake copy | JPEG | 709 × 1536 | 186,403 bytes | 68ba946955c259dc7539ac741bbc3414306fb831d15bd96a8d5e17a3a20157df |
| City-produced intake copy | JPEG | 944 × 2046 | 225,198 bytes | 9c71579ca9f7466f42f7ead470a62cfaf6b3fa6b3c5ed72fc5f5174696139583 |
Embedded dates in intake copies may reflect a later save, export, download, or processing date; this page does not treat those dates as original creation, send, receipt, or production dates.
Why the distinction matters
The City already possessed the clean original of its own letter. The appearance of an externally annotated screenshot in the City evidence record therefore creates a legitimate source-provenance question.
Annotations can direct a reviewer’s attention and influence how a document is interpreted. Identifying where an annotated derivative came from is consequently relevant to understanding the evidence record.
What the record shows
- The publicly posted version reviewed for this comparison did not contain the red circle.
- The privately received version did contain the red circle.
- The City-produced version displays the same distinctive red-circle annotation and substantially the same screenshot composition.
- The privately received and City-produced intake copies are not byte-identical.
- The visual evidence is consistent with a shared annotated source or derivative lineage.
What remains unresolved
- Who directly transmitted the annotated image to the City.
- Whether it passed through one or more intermediaries.
- The complete transmission path between the private copy and the City evidence record.
- Why the City selected an annotated screenshot rather than its clean original.
- Whether the source of this image was also involved in any anonymous complaint.
- The intent of any person in creating, forwarding, receiving, or producing the annotated version.
Closing note
This page documents a source-path discrepancy. It does not identify the private source, attribute authorship of an anonymous complaint, or claim that the available files establish a direct transmission to the City.