The road outsideTitiksha Modern Public School

The audit's read falls. Audit held L0 on the ground that 'at the gate frontage only an informal earthen/unpaved shoulder separates the building line from a road-edge guard-rail'. yqFsIWYw1AsU_h045_f35 refutes this directly: between the guard rail and the building line there is a constructed raised concrete platform, not earth, running as an unbroken light-grey band from the left frame edge, past the gate, along the white wing, to the right frame edge - and a pedestrian in a white shirt is standing on it outside the gate while a second person is in the gate opening. The earthen surface the audit describes lies on the road side of the rail, i.e. the carriageway apron, not the school-side edge. pTeG_gIKlFu5_h074_f90 shows a pedestrian walking along the same band well away from the gate, and pTeG_gIKlFu5_h118_f90 shows it continuous across the full frontage carrying a bench. Three views, two panoramas, two separate pedestrians in use at different points along it. The audit's supporting observation that 'pedestrians including children are seen walking directly on the carriageway' comes only from lBfttsUR4Nxs and sKge5jYCz09j, a neighbourhood lane 145-160 m east captured 2022-03 - a different street from the frontage, and momentary occupancy at that (struck below). My own blind read was then attacked in turn: is the band a genuinely continuous walkable edge or a drain cover interrupted by open channel sections, which would give L1 (exists but broken along most of frontage)? pTeG_gIKlFu5_h118_f35 does show a rectangular concrete channel structure near the gate, but it sits between the rail and the platform, on the road side of the walkable band, with the gate apron slabbed over it; the band itself reads unbroken in all three views. L1 rejected. L3 rejected on clear evidence: the opposite (SW) edge is the elevated-corridor retaining wall meeting the carriageway at a painted kerb with no walkable edge at all (pTeG_h254, yqFsIWYw_h254), so 'both sides' fails, and since levels are cumulative the guard-rail separation cannot lift this to L4 either. Final L2, continuous usable edge one side. Confidence HIGH on the qualifying attribute (existence and continuity of the constructed edge across the frontage); residual uncertainty concerns stretches beyond the frontage and is carried by observability, not confidence. Observability: audit 0.75 vs blind 0.65 is within tolerance, but the audit's figure again drew on off-frontage lane images; settled at 0.65 on the two at-grade panoramas, which cover the school-side edge across the whole frontage and the far side clearly, but not beyond roughly 70 m either way.

The audit's read falls. Audit held L1 on the ground that 'no distinct off-carriageway assembly area or railing is visible'. Both conditions are in fact present and visible in all four gate images. Railing: a continuous W-beam guard rail runs between the gate frontage and the carriageway across the entire width of pTeG_h118_f90, pTeG_h118_f35, yqFsIWYw_h045_f90 and yqFsIWYw_h045_f35 - the audit's own P3 note acknowledges this same rail ('a road-edge guard-rail'), so its P5 finding of 'no railing' contradicts its own record. Assembly area: the raised concrete platform between gate and rail is occupied by a standing pedestrian in yqFsIWYw_h045_f35 and carries a bench in pTeG_h118_f90, demonstrating usable off-carriageway space; the gate apron is slabbed over the roadside drain. L2 requires 'clear setback OR railing giving off-carriageway assembly space' - here both limbs are satisfied. My own blind read was then attacked for over-reach in the other direction: does the configuration reach L3? No. L3 needs a separate pedestrian opening visible in zoom, and pTeG_h118_f35 at f35 resolves the entrance as a single grille leaf under the archway with painted panels either side and no second opening; the alternative limb, a continuous rail from gate to crossing, is unattainable because P2 is L0 and no crossing exists to run to. L4 also fails - no marked pick-up/drop-off bay anywhere on the frontage. Final L2, HIGH confidence (two panoramas, wide and zoom, fully consistent). Observability: both reads gave 0.90 and it holds - the gate is covered by four images from two panoramas at 19.4 m and 29.9 m at two FOVs.