GC/836/P06: from the public award to a complete investment, employment and control trail.

25 October 2026 · receipt-verified presentation and source-qualified party corrections

Registered supplements: Gil Marer reports recovery of five document categories

The Madrid supplement was registered as REGAGE26e00091804140 on 25 October at 02:15:58. The CTBG 3929/2026 supplement was registered as REGAGE26e00091804303 at 02:49:03, following the response registered on 24 October as REGAGE26e00091778502. Madrid retains its original registration REGAGE26e00091776746 and continuations REGAGE26e00091777235 and REGAGE26e00091777533. Times are those printed by the electronic headquarters; no timezone offset is inferred.

What the filed account now corrects

Gil Marer’s supplements state that, after the morning submissions on 24 October, he located, downloaded and examined copies corresponding to five categories: a receipt concerning HNT’s application; the published award; an individual Council assessment sheet; valuation criteria; and the communication inviting HNT to make representations. Current non-obtainment of those copies is therefore no longer maintained. This does not establish when each file was first uploaded or historically accessible, or that the complete aid file was delivered.

• Authentication: later portal occurrence 9118714 of the 21 October ministerial report has a visible CSV wrapper. The earlier examined copy and the later occurrence remain separate. Their formal or binary differences do not themselves establish forgery, manipulation or personal authorship.
• Contrary and limiting evidence: the 9 April decision directed the applicant to the private portal for annexes; the 10 April certificate records opening of the notification; and the 9 June response addressed the access incident. These records must be considered alongside the April complaint. Opening a notification does not certify access to every annex, and reporting an April incident does not prove that it persisted until October.
• Scope and versions: the individual actilla of 26 April 2023 is not automatically the full Council minutes; the received 2025 consolidation of criteria and the separately recovered 21 September 2022 version are distinct sources; HNT’s hearing invitation is not its 4 March opposition or annexes.

Ownership, works and personal attribution remain separate tests

The actilla proposes an ownership condition at the end of the grant’s validity period. That condition alone does not require completed ownership at application or award; it neither transfers civil title nor authorises occupation or damage to another owner’s property. The individual deadline, extensions and compliance require their own records. The Ministry’s 7 June 2022 entry does not by itself establish the first valid regional application or which earlier work formed part of the aided investment.

The 2022 criteria exclude demolition costs from subsidy, but neither the civil-works budget nor earlier works alone establish subsidised demolition, payment or criminality. The corporate Dyrecto channel does not establish David Hoys Bodelón’s personal mandate, receipt, knowledge or authorship. Laura Patricia Acosta Matos is the canonical identity; correcting a source-name error does not extend unproved attribution.

What remains open: original application and project, individual award and conditions, HNT’s actual opposition and powers, file-by-file historical access logs, and the relevant budget, verification and payment records. The supplements maintain the qualified allegations and the CTBG statement NO DESISTO. Registration establishes presentation and attachment identity, not internal incorporation, admission, an opened investigation, eligibility compliance or a merits finding. Prior adverse judicial and fiscal decisions remain part of the record.

Both receipts were compared with the privately preserved filed bytes: Madrid’s two listed attachments and CTBG’s four match their SHA-512 fingerprints. The CTBG annex is the same 131-page compilation filed in Madrid, not independent corroboration. Authored renderings and actual filed binaries retain separate provenance. Gil Marer’s filed CTBG supplement describes the earlier complaint copy as textually and visually identical despite its different bytes; receipt verification does not establish that content-equivalence account. Protected originals and unnecessary personal data remain private.