# T011 — Fayetteville Evidence Delivery Messages Two Fayetteville FOIA closeout messages appeared to conflict about whether responsive records were delivered through Axon Evidence.com. The City Attorney's same-day explanation resolves the message-level conflict as generic boilerplate, while leaving a separate substantive question about vendor-held trial records open. ## Statement A The May 21 completion notice told the requester to check for Axon Evidence.com email if requested documents were absent from the production link (Gmail thread `19e4b63c1e936364`; correspondence trace at [[fayetteville-pd/PD-2026-1484/_overview|Fayetteville production overview]]). ## Statement B The May 22 closeout said all responsive items were in JustFOIA and “We did not send any records via Evidence.com” (Gmail thread `19e4faa3ea9d3745`; correspondence trace at [[fayetteville-pd/PD-2026-1484/_overview|Fayetteville production overview]]). ## Why it matters Without the explanation, the two notices could suggest an incomplete delivery route. They do not establish that conclusion. The separate question—whether ALPR administration data, hot lists, and logs existed on Axon's platform during the trial and remained public records in vendor custody—is tracked at [[Vendor-Controlled ALPR Trial Data]]. ## Resolution status **Resolved.** Senior Assistant City Attorney Blake Pennington explained on May 22 that the Evidence.com language is generic body/dash-camera boilerplate automatically sent with police-records responses and that this request received no Evidence.com delivery (Gmail thread `19e4fcf6fc1e4b4e`). That explanation reconciles the delivery messages but does not resolve vendor custody or prior existence of trial data. ## Discovery Surfaced during the 2026-05-22 Fayetteville ingest and formalized as a tension during the 2026-07-20 contamination/dependency lint. ## Notes - No dialectic is warranted because the custodian supplied a direct, contemporaneous reconciliation.