Both texts are newly written practice sources about invented people, places or projects.

Text One: An original account of a handling trial involving ceramic sample tiles.

Before six glazed tiles were used in a series of craft workshops, I gave each one a number and completed a condition card. Existing chips and scratches were marked on a simple outline of the tile. I examined every surface beneath the same lamp and from the same position, so that later comparisons would not depend on changing light.

After the first workshop, a steward reported that Tile 4 had been dropped. A narrow crack beside its corner was therefore recorded as damage linked to a known incident. Tile 2 returned with a pale patch, but nobody had seen how it appeared. I described the change without claiming that it had been caused by cleaning or transport.

The first photographs were less useful than I had expected. A shallow scratch disappeared when light fell directly onto it, although it became clear when the tile was tilted. Later records therefore combined photographs with written descriptions. Similar curved marks appeared on three tiles that had travelled in the same carrying rack. This gave us a reason to inspect the rack, but the report did not present it as proof of the cause.

Two tiles were returned too late for the final examination. The summary named them and made clear that its conclusions were based on the four complete records rather than the whole set.

Text Two: An original report about checking wooden printing blocks used in community classes.

Eight wooden printing blocks were examined before and after five community classes. Each block had a reference code, and the first record described its edges, handle and printing surface. This initial check later prevented an old dent from being reported as fresh damage merely because a tutor had not noticed it before.

The blocks were photographed after every class, but the photographs were not always directly comparable. Pictures taken near a window made two surfaces appear lighter than they had under the original lamp. The team therefore repeated the inspection under the earlier conditions and found no visible change in colour.

A class log confirmed that Block C had been placed in water by mistake, so this incident was included in the report alongside the condition found afterwards. Sticky material on Block F was harder to explain. Adhesive had been used during the class, but nobody had recorded it touching the block. The report identified this as a possible explanation rather than an established fact.

The final account separated observed changes, recorded incidents and suggested causes. It also stated that five classes were too limited a period for conclusions about years of repeated use. Copies of the original condition records were kept so that future examinations could be compared with the same starting evidence.