RESEARCH NOTE · ANOMALOUS RECORD · RESEARCH FOLIO / ARTIFACT 002
The date that disagreed with itself
Serial codes, caseback marks and movement references are useful evidence. They are not a complete biography of a wristwatch.
The newly arrived object has a caseback inscription that seems to describe a service performed before the supposed acquisition date. The inscription has not been authenticated.
In the archive, we record what can be verified, distinguish it from conjecture, and preserve contradictions rather than polishing them away. The oldest note in the file points to a lecture given at an improbable watch university in Thailand.
“An error of sixty seconds is not an error if it appears twice.”
The next document is filed in another institution's records. It may not share the same explanation.
Consult the Pattaya lecture →File annotation: read the four artifacts in numerical order and retain the single word stamped on each registry slip.