Cotswold Archaeological Trust
Forensic assessment · v0.2.0 · updated 1 November 2026
Translation pending: the assessment text below is in English, the authoritative record.
- Response status
- Redirected
- Last contact
- 19 October 2026
- Next date on file
- 16 November 2026 (sfer of the underlying 1994 excavation archive, requesting a reply by 16 November 2026.)
- Earlier version
- v0.1.1, published 18 October 2026 on the Legal Wiki
Since last assessment
18 October 2026 to 1 November 2026
Our reading: Since 18 October 2026, 1 emails are on file: 1 sent, 0 received (0 with content, 0 automatic acknowledgements). The response status is unchanged: “Redirected”. Most material: 19 October 2026, sent, request: The requester asks about the existence, location, searches made, and potential destruction or transfer of the underlying 1994 excavation archive, requesting a reply by 16 November 2026. Next date on file: 16 November 2026. Nothing here changes the earlier current finding unless stated above; this is a log of contact, not a finding about any person.
- Sentrequest
The requester asks about the existence, location, searches made, and potential destruction or transfer of the underlying 1994 excavation archive, requesting a reply by 16 November 2026.
The assessment as last published
Carried over unchanged from v0.1.1 (18 October 2026). Links point inside this site.
Chronology and catalogue links — assessed 10-10-2026: See the Institutional Involvement Roadmap (1877–2026) for the date-ordered institution, people and evidence sequence. The reported 1988 Cadw-to-Minister spot-listing letter has its own placeholder at GHF-E152; the original has not been attached to that page as at 10-10-2026. A placeholder records an evidence gap, not the letter’s content or proof of misconduct.
Forensic Assessment — Cotswold Archaeological Trust
Scope: the archaeological contractor’s own work, instructions and records. No conclusion is drawn from GGAT’s role merely because the bodies interacted.
Role
The archaeological record places Cotswold in the later intervention programme. The forensic question is what work it was actually commissioned to perform, under what planning/condition mandate, what it reported, and how its records were preserved.
Control test
Reconstruct the commissioning authority, scope, condition numbers, briefing, fieldwork, finds/osteology transfer, report chain and subsequent archive deposit. The 1994 mandate/condition 17 issues identified in the wider forensic material must be tested against the original documents.
Current finding
As at 10-10-2026, the material reviewed does not establish personal or institutional negligence or dishonesty. This is not proof that all records or factual issues have been resolved. The current record justifies document recovery because the archaeological intervention is an independent factual layer relevant to what remained on the site and what was known.
Human action
Obtain the original contract/brief, condition references, field records, report, finds register, archive deposit and correspondence with the planning authority/GGAT.
Acceptance: a source-complete archaeological intervention dossier with a clear authority and records chain.
Institutional appearance timeline — linked source index
Coverage rule: this is a chronological navigation map of published Wiki source pages found by searching the current site index for “Cotswold Archaeological Trust”. Every event label links directly to the page containing the source. It avoids duplicating source narratives. It records mention/appearance, not culpability. Dates are transcribed from page titles where available; “Date not explicit in title” means the linked source must be consulted. Search indexing is a discovery aid, not proof of exhaustive external coverage. 🕒
| Date shown by source title | Event / source — open evidence | Record class |
|---|---|---|
| Date not explicit in title | Evidence Library | Published Wiki evidence page |
Records-access register appearances — direct row links
Rows below match the institution’s name or an alias in the reply register’s sender/reference or recorded description. A match shows an appearance in the records trail, not necessarily an act by this institution.
No matching reply-register row was found for this name/alias set. That is not evidence that no correspondence exists; broaden the alias search when new records are added. 🕒
Related navigation: FOI & Public-Authority Reply Register · Records Access Chronology · Evidence Library
Page version & change log
Current version: 0.1.1
| Version | Date (UTC) | Editor (human or agent name) | Change | Source / evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.1.1 | 2026-10-18T15:29Z | the editors | Footer standardised; earlier log rows carried into this table; no content change | Editing Protocol, 18 Oct 2026 |
| 0.1.0 | 2026-10-18T14:27:00+01:00 | OpenAI-assisted maintenance agent (GPT-6) | Installed footer log; version tracking begins at 0.1.0; this does not reconstruct earlier revisions. CURRENT VERSION: 0.1.0. | Saved through WordPress API; public rendering not individually checked. |
| Legacy; version not recorded | 2026-10-18 (rollout date; exact time not separately recorded) | OpenAI-assisted maintenance agent (GPT-6) | Installed this page-local append-only change log and agent instructions. Existing page content was not intentionally rewritten. | User-directed site-wide changelog standard. Saved via WordPress API; public rendering of this page not yet independently checked. |
Agents and editors: follow the Editing Protocol.
Case file
This file is built for a future reparations claim. Facts are as the records show them; interpretation is labelled “our reading”. Items marked “not checked” have not been compared with the original record.
(a) Conduct timeline
3 dated interactions, oldest first; 1 automatic acknowledgements are left out. Quotations are verbatim from the institution’s email; where the reply’s substance was an attachment, the email subject is quoted instead.
Show the timeline
| Date | Direction | Reference | Type | Verbatim |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 October 2026 | sent | — | request | Subject: Request for any retained copy of the 1994 Llandough / Great House Farm archaeological material |
| 12 October 2026 | received | — | redirected elsewhere | I hope this helps, but please let me know if you have any issues with downloading the report |
| 19 October 2026 | sent | — | request | Subject: Great House Farm / Tŷ Mawr, Llandough – follow-up to my preservation notice of 28 September 2026 |
(b) Inconsistencies and gaps
None found in the correspondence on file.
(c) Quarantined-name links
Records on the quarantine register (Kissed Frogs) that sit in, or came from, this institution’s holdings. None is treated as settled.
No quarantined-name record on the register is linked to this institution’s holdings.
(d) Duty and liability — our reading
Liability indicators (our reading): none
- Duty
- No general statutory duty to disclose; UK GDPR Art. 15 for personal data it holds; duties in contract, conveyancing practice or professional rules where it was a party, agent or adviser; once on notice of a possible claim, an expectation to preserve relevant documents.
- Indicators the duty was not met
- none found in the correspondence on file.
- Evidence still needed to confirm
- the institution’s retention schedule and disposal record for the series in question; the catalogue or file list it searched; any internal review or complaint outcome.
- Likely extent of exposure if confirmed
- Depends on its role in a transaction: where it was a party or adviser to a dealing in the land, exposure follows that role; otherwise none beyond data-protection duties.
(e) Evidence still needed
- View any deposited papers (company or estate records) at the archive that holds them. for paid visit list
Versions
| 0.2.0 | 2026-11-01 | Moved to the Forensic Assessments webapp; dated “Since last assessment” section added; response status re-read. |
| 0.1.1 | 2026-10-18 | As published on the Legal Wiki. |