Article 843 historically names wall-section removal, concrete-pavement breakup, and reinforced-concrete cutting. Those are task labels, not verified findings. The archive identifies no exact saw or blade, material qualification, structural plan, project, study, or measured result, so this docket retains vocabulary while redacting every procedural and performance assertion.
Three task names survive as archive evidence; no statement about what a saw can do survives as an established fact.
Source-audit disposition for article 843
Exhibits retained in filing order
The filenames move from metal to steel to concrete wire. That sequence documents mixed media and cannot identify a concrete saw, blade, material range, or demolition project.
Task labels admitted only as historical wording
Wall-section removal
The phrase appears without a named structure, survey, structural plan, saw, blade, responsible organization, or completed record. No method or result follows from the label.
Concrete-pavement breakup
The archive provides no location, pavement identity, project owner, equipment record, or attributable observation. The wording remains an index term only.
Reinforced-concrete cutting
No concrete or reinforcement qualification, exact equipment, blade record, plan, or project evidence is linked to this phrase. It does not establish capability.
Why the remaining claims are redacted
Identity chain absent
The title, body terms, and mixed media do not converge on one saw or blade. A category name cannot fill that gap.
Structural context absent
No named structure, responsible designer, approved plan, or dated project record defines the context of any task label.
Outcome evidence absent
The archive contains no attributable measurements for time, repairs, waste, dust, debris, noise, environmental effect, or any other result.
