Beyond a downloaded file
The June review-package work combined recovered text with source metadata, a reading version, an executive summary and a quality note. A repeatable capture script supported the process. The result was an evidence package for review, rather than a loose collection of files whose origin had to be reconstructed later.
The source manifest included file locations and SHA-256 hashes. A hash identifies whether a stored file has changed; it does not certify that the text is accurate or that republication is permitted. Those questions needed separate records.
Making text quality visible
The quality manifest distinguished cleaner digital text from material needing optical character recognition cleanup. That distinction affects the work still to do. A readable screen of text can contain transcription errors that are hard to spot without returning to page images or another reliable source.
The package therefore did not describe captured material as proofread editions. It preserved the gap between acquiring something useful for assessment and preparing something suitable for readers.
Rights review is a different gate
A rights checklist was created alongside the capture work. Its purpose was to prevent full-text availability from being confused with publication clearance. Technical access, textual quality and permission are separate dimensions, even when they concern the same file.
No individual work is identified in this public account. The useful lesson is the method: capture enough provenance and quality information at acquisition time to let a human reviewer understand both the evidence and the remaining uncertainty.
Evidence for this entry
This account is grounded in project records. Internal research and operational files are not published here.
What the records support
- Repeatable capture, manifests, quality notes, hashes and lifecycle correction; no editorial decisions or publication clearance implied.