A record that admits what is missing

Text A: an original contemporary practice extract.

A neighbourhood sound project invited residents to describe noises that had disappeared from local streets. The first recordings included confident memories of factory whistles, delivery carts and a bell once rung outside a shop. When two contributors disagreed about the bell, the editor resisted choosing the account that sounded most convincing.

Instead, the final recording included both recollections and explained that no photograph or written notice had settled the question. Listeners could hear the uncertainty rather than mistake one memory for an established fact. The disagreement did not weaken the collection. It showed where personal testimony ended and confirmed evidence began.

Text B: an original contemporary practice extract.

Volunteers cataloguing a collection of handmade tools found several whose makers were unknown. An early draft of the catalogue assigned names by comparing the tools with labelled examples, but the resemblances were not conclusive. The team removed those confident attributions before publication.

Each uncertain entry now records what is known: where the tool was found, who donated it and which craft used similar objects. Possible makers are mentioned only as suggestions. The catalogue therefore contains some unanswered questions, but it no longer turns a reasonable guess into a fact. Its blank spaces tell future researchers where more evidence is needed.