Five tests, five labels, one publication rule
Evidence lock: August 20, 2026
This is a public-records ledger and analytical review. It is not a financial-statement audit, forensic audit, legal opinion, engineering review, procurement protest, or value-for-money assurance opinion. KPMG-audited statements and MNP internal-audit reports are treated as sources; this review does not reproduce their assurance work.
- 1. Primary source
Use official City, board or commission, provincial disclosure, or an attachment placed on a City agenda.
- 2. Scope
State the period, entity, unit, support type, and population.
- 3. Status
Preserve the differences among approval, budget, award, commitment, payment, completion, and outcome.
- 4. Reproduction
Make displayed arithmetic recalculable from cited figures.
- 5. Language
Keep interpretation within the source and place material limitations beside the claim.
Policy-vintage rule
The current procurement policy took effect on 2025-10-01. Earlier awards are evaluated under the policy version then in force, not retroactively under the current policy.
No false completion
A module can be finished even when the public record does not support a transaction-level conclusion. Completion means the test, denominator, source gap, responsible record-holder, and requested fields have been specified. It is not permission to guess.
- Verified
- Directly stated in a scope-matched primary source.
- Derived
- Arithmetic computed from verified inputs; the calculation is shown.
- Limited
- Verified only at a narrower denominator, scope, or stage than the headline suggests.
- Requested
- The input is City-held and was not located publicly. No substantive conclusion until received.
- Corrected
- Current source-locked wording supersedes an earlier statement. See docs/corrections.
Safe formulations
- “The 2026 budget update reports…” plus the correct support type.
- “Of 1,978 awards scraped from the posted portal…”
- “The 2025 DC report shows…”
- “The Sunshine List disclosure population…”
- Use the specific housing stage: permitted, tracked, in progress, planned, completed, or occupied.
- “MNP observed…” with the audit named.
- “The public record does not provide an end-to-end reconciliation.”
Avoid
- “The City spent…” when the source is budget authority.
- “Of all City procurement…” for the scraped portal population.
- Solvency or sustainability conclusions from the DC sensitivity scenarios.
- Treating the Sunshine List as total City headcount.
- “Homes built” for mixed housing stages.
- Treating a councillor's letter as an audit finding.
- Fraud, corruption, steering, favouritism, or waste without direct evidence.
Canonical edition
Use only Final Public Edition 5.0 and later source-locked supplements for outreach. Do not circulate Edition 1.0 or any pre-2026-07-26 draft as fact-checked final work.
Corrections carried into Final Public Edition 5.0. Superseded versions are preserved, not deleted.
- The 2023 maintain-current infrastructure gap rose 66.3% from the 2019 plan; it did not nearly double. It approximately doubled from the 2014 plan.
- HHI is used only as a descriptive statistic for the disclosed-value slice. It is not a competition-law market, and obsolete enforcement thresholds are not used.
- A favourable PSAB variance is described neutrally as actual exceeding the budgeted annual surplus, not as a service-performance win.
- Historical awards are tested against the policy version in force at the time, not retroactively against the policy effective 2025-10-01.
- The earlier claim that the internal-audit crosswalk was already built was withdrawn; the crosswalk is built in Final Public Edition 5.0 and the companion workbook.