# 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.