All three data.gov.uk pages display North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council.
PROVENANCE AUDIT · 29 AUGUST 2026
The catalogue names one council. The source names another.
Across three public records, data.gov.uk displays North Tyneside as publisher while the description and source page point to Leeds, Liverpool or Newcastle. What changed, exactly?
Short answer The pages show a metadata mismatch, not proof that the files were rewritten. The cause and the scale still need checking.
3 page pairs · manual check · official sources
LEDGER / 01
Follow the same record through two pages.
01 / sourceLeeds · Liverpool · Newcastle
The organisation described by Data Mill North.
02 / catalogueNorth Tyneside
The publisher displayed by data.gov.uk.
Open questionwhy?
01 / THE FINDING
The answer in 30 seconds
The observation is clear enough for an audit and too narrow for an accusation.
The Data Mill North pages name Leeds City Council, Liverpool City Council and Newcastle City Council.
We do not know whether this is a harvest issue, a metadata migration or something else. Three cases are not a prevalence estimate.
3records checked
3publisher/source mismatches
0causes established
02 / THE COMPARISON
What the three records show
The rows keep the catalogue statement and the named source statement separate.
| Dataset | Catalogue publisher | What the summary says | Publisher on source | Catalogue Updated | Source last update |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blue badge applications Harvest 20j71 | North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council | Monthly totals processed by Leeds City Council | Leeds City Council | 15 August 2026 | about 7 years ago |
| Prompt payment performance statistics Harvest e5l3g | North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council | Prompt payment performance for Liverpool City Council | Liverpool City Council | 15 August 2026 | 9 years ago |
| Newcastle libraries enquiries Harvest v8go1 | North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council | Monthly branch-level enquiries for Newcastle City Council | Newcastle City Council | 15 August 2026 | 2 years ago |
The catalogue `Updated` value is a metadata label. We do not treat it as proof that the CSV changed on the same day.
03 / REPRODUCTION
How the check worked
A useful audit leaves a short path back to the original material.
- 01We fixed the record. For each case we noted the data.gov.uk URL, displayed publisher, `Updated` label, summary and Harvest GUID.
- 02We followed the named source. We opened the Data Mill North page with the same identifier and noted its organisation, displayed age and coverage.
- 03We separated observation from explanation. We counted only visible mismatches. We did not turn a coincidence into a cause.
- 04We kept the evidence. The consulted pages are archived locally, while QA checks hashes and calculations from `data/evidence.json`.
04 / THE BRAKE
What this page does not establish
Rigor is partly about what we refuse to infer.
- AIt is not proof that the data was rewritten. A new catalogue label can describe metadata, not file contents.
- BIt is not a directory-wide rate. These three rows are a bounded audit chosen for verifiability.
- CIt is not an assignment of blame. Public pages do not show whether the mismatch came from harvest, migration or another operational step.
- DIt contains no contact data. We publish organisations and official links, not email addresses or people.
The question still open
Which job or metadata record attached these three datasets to the displayed publisher? Only logs and administrative history can answer that.
05 / THE USE
Why this matters to public-data users
An unclear publisher changes the trust path around a dataset, even if the file itself is unchanged.
The publisher is the first lead for questions, updates and editorial responsibility.
An analysis can preserve the index page, the data source and the time each was observed.
A useful ticket contains the URL, GUID, divergent field and captures from the same check.
06 / THE ACTION
A checklist for the next audit
Use these steps before citing a dataset in a story, analysis or decision.
- ✓Save the URL and check time. The catalogue and source can change independently.
- ✓Compare publisher and summary. Look for the organisation on the source page, not only in the title.
- ✓Record the Harvest identifier. The GUID can help a catalogue team find the technical entry.
- ✓Do not name a cause without a log. Ask for metadata history before saying that the file or source changed.
07 / VERIFICATION
Sources and versions
Links point to the public pages consulted. Local captures and hashes record the version used for this build.
data.gov.uk records
- Blue badge applicationsDisplayed publisher: North Tyneside · GUID 20j71
- Prompt payment performance statisticsDisplayed publisher: North Tyneside · GUID e5l3g
- Newcastle libraries enquiriesDisplayed publisher: North Tyneside · GUID v8go1
The check answers “what is visible now?” and leaves “why?” open. That separation is what keeps the audit useful.