# T020 — Jonesboro Shared-Camera Documentation Statement vs Inventory Entries The Section 1 transmittal disclaims any documentation of cameras owned and shared by other organizations, but the workbook it transmits itemizes a county Avigilon system, two private facility feeds, and a separately named private Flock network. The statement and the sheet can both be true only under a narrow reading — that "documentation" means records beyond the inventory itself, or that the itemized feeds fall outside what the custodian meant by shared cameras — and the production does not say which. ## Statement A "Cameras that are owned and shared by another government agency or organization are only shared with us through the host website. We have access through the FLOCK sharing network; therefore, they will have to provide the information you are seeking for this section, as we do not have any documentation or records on this." (Sally Smith transmittal, Gmail message `19f8fde41db5c885`, 2026-07-23.) ## Statement B JPD's own produced workbook lists `Craighead County Avigilon — 26 views`, `TrimGym — 9 Views`, `SW Church James — 8 views`, and a `(Bridger Place (AR) Network)` Flock section with two named sites ([[Jonesboro Camera and Views Inventory]], `Camera Locations.xlsx`, "Cameras and Views," Other Cameras in Avigilon and Flock Safety LPR sections). ## Why it matters The same platform-custody posture — treating platform-visible cross-organization data as not the agency's record — recurs at Cabot ([[T017 - Cabot Sharing Rule vs Unresolved External Account Scope]]) and LRPD ([[T004 - Ambiguous Audit-Log-Review Response vs Unresolved Item 3]]). Whether an agency that tracks external feeds in its own inventory "has no documentation" of them determines what the later sections of `JPD-2026-851` (sharing configuration, tenant lists, retained audits) can be expected to produce, and whether a no-records response for those categories would survive a reasonable-search challenge. ## Resolution status `open` — resolve through the later `JPD-2026-851` sections: tenant/sharing-configuration records, any Avigilon or Flock access agreements or MOUs for the county, school, church, gym, and Bridger Place feeds, and a custodian clarification of what the inventory's external rows represent. ## Discovery Surfaced during the 2026-07-23 Section 1 ingest by comparing the transmittal email to the workbook it delivered. ## Notes The tension concerns record custody and characterization, not bad faith; the custodian's statement may reflect Flock's and Avigilon's platform designs, which is itself corpus-relevant (see [[T001 - Default-On Sharing Policy or Product Design]]).