The first useful thing about Korda's newest filing is not that it answers the Convention's central question. It does not. It is that some of the supporting records now let delegates distinguish where a service happens from where its obligations actually run.
A supplemental source return entered with the Joint Committee on Transition Facts adds title extracts, maintenance instruments and transportation-service records to the working register. Several requested records are still missing. For the entries now supported, however, the picture is becoming less uniform than the phrase "lake corridor" suggests.
Southward on the map, inward in the records
Several facilities serving the southern lake districts also carry obligations into interior Korda. That does not mean those facilities belong to the interior, would remain with the Territory, or could not be reorganized after a status change. It means the present service relationship crosses the line that a simple corridor map can make look cleaner than it is.
Some northern corridor records look different. Their present service areas are more concentrated within the certified corridor or tied northward through existing transportation arrangements. That is consistent with earlier committee evidence showing stronger northern economic integration with Kelvant, while the southern districts remained more closely connected to Korda's interior.
The new filing therefore does not create the north-south distinction. It gives delegates a second kind of evidence pointing in the same direction.
A service map is still not a boundary map
That distinction matters because the Committee has been careful not to turn every operational fact into a constitutional conclusion. A title record can identify an owner. A contract can identify a service area. Neither answers whether a facility would transfer, whether a contract would survive unchanged, or where a constitutional boundary should run.
The same caution applies in the other direction. A facility that serves both southern lake districts and the interior does not establish that those districts must remain together. It establishes that separating them would require delegates to account for a real shared service relationship rather than assuming one away.
That is the kind of evidence the Committee asked for when it sought comparable schedules instead of accepting the first set of fiscal returns at face value. The earlier evidence-register update made the missing documents visible. This return begins filling some of those blanks.
The political meaning remains unsettled
For Jalen Mire, Tomas Rell and Dessa Orin, none of this dictates a vote. Mire can still argue that the corridor's certified democratic claim deserves effect. Rell can still argue that any departure must leave a workable remainder. Orin can still maintain that whole-Territory statehood offers Korda the stronger future.
What is getting harder to maintain is the idea that one answer about the corridor's northern districts automatically describes its southern lake communities. Earlier freight evidence showed different economic orientations. Reporting from those communities showed family, Indigenous, seasonal-food and travel ties extending across the lake and into Korda. The source records now add service obligations to that uneven geography.
The Committee still has outstanding title and contract material to reconcile, and it has issued no preliminary compilation, viability finding, boundary proposal or status recommendation. The Convention's period under §15.5.a(3) continues to run.
The evidence is not yet telling delegates what to choose. It is telling them, with increasing specificity, that the choice cannot be reduced to one corridor-wide assumption.