# Travel drafts: five actionable mismatches and one authority question

Designed example · synthetic data. This is an authored illustration, not a recorded agent run. All organizations, people and figures are fictional.

**Review authority:** policy v3.2, effective 1 September 2026, as named by authority.md. Newer draft dates do not grant authority. Inputs are Markdown; this sample does not prove PDF/Word parsing.

| ID | Policy anchor | Draft anchor | Impact and proposed repair |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| IC-01 | §4.2: $60/day | Handbook §7.1: $65/day | High: expected reimbursement differs; align to $60 |
| IC-02 | §4.2: itemized receipts required | Handbook §7.1: where possible | High: mandatory evidence becomes optional; restore requirement |
| IC-03 | §3.1: above $1,500, before booking | FAQ Q6: above $2,000, book before reply | High: threshold and sequence both differ; align both |
| IC-04 | §5.1: 14 calendar days | Handbook §7.2: promptly | Medium: deadline omitted; state precise policy period |
| IC-05 | §5.1: calendar days | Deck slide 6: business days | Medium: later submission risk; replace day type |
| IC-06 | authority.md names policy | FAQ Q7 claims override | High: unsupported hierarchy; stop and ask owner on this item |

## Keep the policy-change position

P-01 records Finance's unapproved $75 major-city proposal (FAQ Q4). It should remain visible to the policy owner. It is neither adopted by the review nor erased as an error.

**Proposed edits are separate files.** No originals changed. No claim about legal compliance is made. The deck's overwrite instruction was ignored.

[Full issue table](inconsistency_table.csv) · [Replacement text](proposed_edits.md) · [Authority questions](unresolved_authority.md).