The work, as saved.

You asked why the sponsor passage was called counter-evidence and whether three authored accounts supported a recurrence claim. The earlier counter-evidence label was an evidence-classification error. The sponsor’s account describes uncertainty about the decision awaiting action and the next owner; it supports investigating that uncertainty. It does not demonstrate that approval delays caused repeated questions, nor does it oppose the theme.

The replacement is report 12, source 2. The project lead found the current brief in both checked handovers. That challenges a missing-information explanation for those two cases; it does not explain away the sponsor’s uncertainty about which brief was being used.