The work list

Done on 15 September: 5,482 of 5,482 volumes are linkable, and not one is outstanding. The harvester ran 2,359 waypoint calls in David's Chrome without a single failure after it was restarted. Senj was the case David raised — fifteen volumes across three parishes with no link on any of them; all fifteen are openable now.

Read. No De Franceschi — and a better finding than the one it was opened for. The file came up from Capodistria: banns published in Istria, a mother's consent notarised there, and the folded letter from one civil office to the other. What it means is that Istrian paper sits inside Carnian marriage files — which is why the thirteen unread Mione allegati just became the most valuable shelf in the archive.

Three read, nineteen to go. Each of the three has given up something the registers alone could not: Mione 1806 — Gio: Batta and Osvaldo De' Franceschi, two generations in one sheet, with the Pieve's seal still on it. Mione 1815 — Pietro De Franceschi, Felice Santo's grandfather. Ovaro 1807 — a file that came up from Capodistria, proving the series also carries Istrian paper. An allegato is the only place the lost Pieve di Gorto register speaks. Twelve Mione volumes and seven Ovaro ones remain. Paused on 16 September: Antenati is returning 403 Forbidden to David's Chrome, the browser that has been reading it all along — the whole site, not one ark, and on the first request rather than after forty-six. That is a block on the connection and not the eight-kilobyte cookie this archive diagnosed in September. Worth retrying later or from another network; nothing else about the reading has changed.

Morti 1810 is read and gave four deaths of the surname, a son in minor orders, and «Erman De Franceschi» in a man's own signature. Eight volumes left. A Pietro De Franceschi dying in his seventies settles the question the 1792 extract opened, and from 1813 each volume ends with a «Tavola Alfabetica» that makes it a page rather than a book. Paused on 16 September: Antenati is returning 403 Forbidden to David's Chrome, the browser that has been reading it all along — the whole site, not one ark, and on the first request rather than after forty-six. That is a block on the connection and not the eight-kilobyte cookie this archive diagnosed in September. Worth retrying later or from another network; nothing else about the reading has changed. --- 27 September 2026 — reachable again, and now the only route to item 11. *Antenati's 403 was client filtering and is gone; the portal reads normally from a browser.* But its name index will not substitute for these volumes: Ovaro's index carries births only — ten De Franceschi birth acts, fourteen Prencis, one Gortani, and no death act of any surname. *Whatever is in the «Morti» is in the images and nowhere else.*

Banns name both sets of parents and the villages they live in, which is more genealogy per page than a marriage act. Two have been read. Seven have not. Paused on 16 September: Antenati is returning 403 Forbidden to David's Chrome, the browser that has been reading it all along — the whole site, not one ark, and on the first request rather than after forty-six. That is a block on the connection and not the eight-kilobyte cookie this archive diagnosed in September. Worth retrying later or from another network; nothing else about the reading has changed.

Matrimoni indici 1806–1810, 1811, 1812 · Morti indici the same three years · Ovaro's two. An index is the fastest way to find out whether a volume is worth opening at all, and these are the cheapest six things on the shelf. Paused on 16 September: Antenati is returning 403 Forbidden to David's Chrome, the browser that has been reading it all along — the whole site, not one ark, and on the first request rather than after forty-six. That is a block on the connection and not the eight-kilobyte cookie this archive diagnosed in September. Worth retrying later or from another network; nothing else about the reading has changed.

Catalogued and linked; two read. 1806 and 1807 are the years Mione does not have. Paused on 16 September: Antenati is returning 403 Forbidden to David's Chrome, the browser that has been reading it all along — the whole site, not one ark, and on the first request rather than after forty-six. That is a block on the connection and not the eight-kilobyte cookie this archive diagnosed in September. Worth retrying later or from another network; nothing else about the reading has changed.

Mieli turned up by accident — its arks sit immediately before Mione's, which is how the one-comune-per-block assumption was caught. The Val di Gorto has a dozen comuni and this archive has catalogued three. A De Franceschi who left Mione did not necessarily leave the valley. Paused on 16 September: Antenati is returning 403 Forbidden to David's Chrome, the browser that has been reading it all along — the whole site, not one ark, and on the first request rather than after forty-six. That is a block on the connection and not the eight-kilobyte cookie this archive diagnosed in September. Worth retrying later or from another network; nothing else about the reading has changed. --- 27 September 2026 — the 403 is gone, and the comuni have been surveyed. The block was client filtering, not the network. *Antenati still returns 403 to a plain `curl` and 200 to a real browser, on the same machine and the same connection.* It was read here from the in-app browser — not by putting a browser's User-Agent on a script, which would be dressing up a client the site is deliberately turning away. The name index does reach Carnia. `cognome=De Franceschi` returns 418 rows across Italy, and the Località facet carries Carnic comuni. Of twenty Carnia comuni tested, three hold the name: Paluzza, Mione, Ovaro. Five more are proven to be indexed and to hold none of it — *Comeglians, Prato Carnico, Rigolato, Tolmezzo, Cercivento*. That distinction cost two controls and is the whole value of the survey: a nil from this portal means «no De Franceschi» only if the comune is in the index at all, and *«Rossi» returns nothing anywhere in Carnia*, so it proves nothing. «Della Pietra», «Puntel» and «Craighero» are Carnic and they do. Eleven remain unknown — *Forni Avoltri, Sutrio, Arta Terme, Ampezzo, Socchieve, Enemonzo, Raveo, Villa Santina, Zuglio, Treppo Carnico, Paularo* — because none of the three control surnames matched there either. They are not negatives. And Paluzza's twelve rows are already in this archive, every one. *Francesco of Naunina 1807, Maria Anna 1810, Pietro Antonio 1810, Cattarina 1811, Daniele 1782, and the mothers Domenica Englaro, Maria Delli Zolti and Maria Silverio — all carried under `src: record`, which means these registers were read here before the portal was asked.* The survey confirms the existing reading against an independent index and adds nothing to it. *The remaining value of this item is Mione, Ovaro, and the eleven comuni whose coverage is still unknown.* *One measurement was thrown away getting here: every comune reported «10 results» because the count was being read off «10 risultati per pagina». The real totals are in the facets.* --- The survey is complete, and the method that completed it is simpler than the one that started it. *Guessing control surnames — «Rossi», then «Della Pietra», «Puntel», «Craighero» — answered five comuni and left eleven unknown, because a nil proves nothing when the control surname may simply not live there.* Querying a comune with NO surname at all asks the index directly whether it holds that place, and answers every one. Eighteen Carnia comuni, settled: · The name is present in TWO — Paluzza and Ovaro. *(Mione is a frazione of Ovaro and returns Ovaro's rows.)* · Thirteen are indexed and hold none of it: *Comeglians, Forni Avoltri, Sutrio, Arta Terme, Socchieve, Raveo, Villa Santina, Zuglio, Paularo, Prato Carnico, Rigolato, Tolmezzo, Cercivento.* These are real negatives. · Three are not in the name index at all and remain unknown: *Ampezzo, Enemonzo, Treppo Carnico.* ⚠ What this does NOT say. *The Napoleonic civil registers run 1806–1815. This is a map of where the name stood in those nine years — not in 1742, when a Svetvinčenat clerk first wrote «ex Cargn.» against a Defranceschi.* Two comuni in 1810 is a lead towards the Carnic homeland and not a finding about it, and the parish registers that would speak to the 1740s are a different body of records entirely.

Done, and the rule changed under it. All eleven living people the archive names are placed — eight at Johannesburg, five at Brisbane, two in both — and eight more came in from the tree on 15–16 September: Lidija, Peter, Renata and Ursula of the Crikvenica and German households, and the Australian branch. Twenty-six living people, and the build gate confirms zero dates reach any page.

Struck the day it was raised. The question was whether *Erman* is a by-name on a De Franceschi house. It is not: his 1809 marriage act, already in this archive, gives him as son of the late Pietro Erman and Maddalena née de Franceschi. The compound is his two parents. Logged.

The marriage index calls Osvaldo's wife Valentina Prencis on 6 August 1807. The birth act calls her Cattarina nata Crencis on 15 October 1810. Both readings are held open. The Mione «Morti» would settle it if the first one died. Paused on 16 September: Antenati is returning 403 Forbidden to David's Chrome, the browser that has been reading it all along — the whole site, not one ark, and on the first request rather than after forty-six. That is a block on the connection and not the eight-kilobyte cookie this archive diagnosed in September. Worth retrying later or from another network; nothing else about the reading has changed. --- 27 September 2026 — half of it is settled, and the half that is settled is the surname. Antenati's name index gives Osualdo two children by the same wife, five years apart: *Gio Batta, born Ovaro 15 October 1810, madre Cattarina Prencis; and Maria Maddalena, born Ovaro 4 November 1815, madre Catterina Prencis.* So «Crencis» is gone. *The archive had «Cattarina nata Crencis» off one hand on one act. Two acts, two clerks, five years apart, both write Prencis — which is also the surname the 1807 marriage index gives Valentina.* The wives of 1807 and 1810 share a surname; the question was never about that. Valentina or Cattarina is still open, and the new act does not close it. *Cattarina is his wife in 1810 and still in 1815, which fits a second marriage as comfortably as it fits one woman recorded under two names. The Mione «Morti» would still settle it — item 4 — and that is now reachable again, because the 403 is gone.* And the name index cannot finish it — that is now proved rather than assumed. Ovaro's Antenati index is BIRTHS ONLY. *Four surnames tested: De Franceschi 10 birth acts, Prencis 14, Gortani 1 — and zero marriage acts and zero death acts between them.* So the 1807 marriage that names Valentina is not in this index at all, and neither is any death. Nor can the women's own births be there. *The Napoleonic registers at Ovaro run 1806–1815. A woman marrying in 1807 was born in the 1780s.* The fourteen Prencis births are all children of 1810–1815 — *Biaggio, Domenica Anna, Anna Lucia Luigia, Giovanni Battista* — not the generation in question. *The route is unchanged and it is item 4, the Mione «Morti» read as images. The index has given all it holds.*

He witnesses Lucia Santa's wedding in 1815 and the act calls all four witnesses *«non parenti, né affini»*. Her father was Osvaldo Antonio de Caneva; Daniele, forty-nine, was born about 1766. Either two Osvaldos at Liariis, or the formula is boilerplate. Paused on 16 September: Antenati is returning 403 Forbidden to David's Chrome, the browser that has been reading it all along — the whole site, not one ark, and on the first request rather than after forty-six. That is a block on the connection and not the eight-kilobyte cookie this archive diagnosed in September. Worth retrying later or from another network; nothing else about the reading has changed.

The single most valuable letter this archive has ever drafted. Mione's civil births stop at 1810 and there is no civil registration at all before 1806 — so Paolo, Osvaldo, Francesco, Matteo, Felice Santo and now Pietro were all baptised in a book only Gorto holds. The draft is written, in Italian, and ready to send. ⚠ 29 September 2026 — David: «not sending letters yet.» This item waits on that decision and is not to be raised again until he lifts it. *Recorded once, here, so no session re-opens it by suggesting the letter afresh.*

DAPA has answered twice — for Svetvinčenat and Pićan — and both times asked for the same completed form: applicant's details, delivery address, billing details including an OIB. A third sits with DAZD. This archive does not hold that data and will not invent it. ⚠ 29 September 2026 — David: «not sending letters yet.» This item waits on that decision and is not to be raised again until he lifts it. *Recorded once, here, so no session re-opens it by suggesting the letter afresh.*

L-M27 rests on a father and a son, which is the same opinion asked twice. One cousin reading his paternal haplogroup off an account he already has settles it either way. The message is drafted; the Gračišće reunion families are the first ask.

Done, and it was done before this row was raised. The undigitised sets the forty-nine out place by place and holder by holder with the DAPA shelf numbers, and carries a draft request in Croatian with the blanks named — the DAPA number and the years are what the office works from. `out/dapa-zahtjevi.md` carries the filled-in guidance for the two forms. What is left is not writing but sending, and that waits on David's own details, like every other DAPA form.

Done: `site/src/data/reads.json`. A row names a place, a volume in the words the panel prints, a state — read or part — and what was read. The builder stamps it onto the volume and reports any row that matches no volume rather than dropping it, which is how the Vodnjan title was caught wrong on the first run. Four volumes pinned so far; six places now have a book of their own opened.

Found, walked and catalogued on 15 September. The collection's own waypoint list names it — ten confession roots, and «Evangelical (Evangelička crkva)» is sd_4, waypoint `9R27-7M4:391644401`. Six parishes, seven volumes, all now catalogued with their arks harvested and openable from the map. Brekinjska and Hrastovac stop being grey, and every grey marker left on the map is a checked negative rather than an admission. On the search register.

Done, and it widened by a different route than expected. The note said better name matching would turn one finding into forty. It did not need to: the providers multiplied instead, and the test now stands at 27 places against six — Istria against Pazin, Međimurje against the Slovenian collection, Croatian Istria against the Italian one, Delnice against the main Croatian shelf. 294 volumes before 1890 listed by one holder and unfilmed by the other; 393 after 1890, which is privacy and not a hole. And it was wrong in the other direction first. The library catalogue had crept into the comparison, which inflated it to 78 places and 1,572 volumes — a bibliographic line spanning three centuries being read as a claim about a particular year. `fs-cat` is now excluded from the test, because a catalogue is not a shelf.

Walked, and there are four congregations on this archive's ground, not two. Pola — Taufbuch 1873–1913; Görz — Taufbuch 1860–1913; Triest AB — four registers 1848–1918; Triest HB — three, 1900–1918. Nine volumes, free and online. Pola is the one that matters and the row had not heard of it: this family's southern-Istrian cluster is Pula, Ližnjan, Fažana and Medulin, and Pola in 1873 was the imperial naval base filling with incomers. The family is Roman Catholic and an Evangelical baptism book is unlikely to hold it — but *unlikely is not checked*, and this map already carries six Evangelical parishes walked on exactly that argument. On the search register.

`./scripts/publish.sh` builds and audits clean — 1,231 pages, every link and anchor — then fails on `MISSING OUTPUT: /404/` and refuses to push. An untracked `404.astro` builds to `404.html` rather than `404/index.html`. It belongs to the session that owns the cross-site UI. Everything here is being committed and pushed by hand around it. Fixed, 20 September 2026 — by this session, in this archive's own script. `publish.sh` derived each page's expected output as `dist/<slug>/index.html`, and Astro emits `404.astro` as `dist/404.html` by design. The check now accepts either spelling: ``` [[ -f "$out" || -f "site/dist/$slug.html" ]] || { echo "MISSING OUTPUT: /$slug/"; missing=1; } ``` It was never the other session's to fix — the 404 page was correct all along and the checker was wrong. Publishing by hand around it has stopped; every commit since has gone through `publish.sh` with all seven gates.

425 volumes in the Istrian and Kvarner parishes this family is documented in, each now opening at page one from the research map.

Struck: it answered a question nobody was asking. Shading by how many volumes sit on a shelf looked better than the saturated three-state scale it replaced, and said less — a parish with forty volumes nobody has opened and a parish with two nobody has opened are in the same state. The colour now says *how far we have got*: never opened, started, read right through. Depth moved into the panel, in words, where it can sit next to «nobody has read any of it» without pretending to be it.

Seventy-four volumes for Mione, Ovaro and Mieli, every one verified by fetching its own catalogue page. Its arks sit on a different host from everything else, so the map sends a reader to the archive's own list rather than dressing them as FamilySearch links.

Matricula holds no Croatian parish at all. Twelve countries in its fonds index and Croatia is not one of them; its place search returns nothing for Senj, Karlobag, Rijeka or Fiume. The line was written from memory and never checked. Logged as a correction.

Six places are described by more than one provider, and they are the only places a gap can be seen. 147 volumes are listed at Pazin, from before 1890, that FamilySearch has not filmed — and 313 more after 1890 that are the privacy cut-off and not a gap at all.

The best single hour of the day. Felice Santo's baptismal extract of 2 November 1792 names *«Pauli filii Petri De Franceschi mionensis»* — a grandfather this archive did not have — copied out of the Pieve di Gorto's own register and certified at Luincis.

Both. And the gap turned out to be narrower than published: Ovaro kept 1807, so it is one lost Mione volume rather than a hole in the system.

Seventeen — from Felice Santo the weaver and Lucia Santa de Canova down to the two Luint tradesmen who witnessed a birth in 1810, and the priests who certified the extracts.

Six spellings, three women, one Friulian house-name — *«in cjasa da Prences»*. And a 1792 priest's Latin writes it Prencis, with a P, which is the earliest and most careful hand of the lot.

The hundred and fifty-four — by place, by holder, with the DAPA shelf numbers and a draft in Croatian. 34 of them are in parishes on our own line.

The first Antenati catalogue named fifty-nine volumes from contiguous ark ranges, assuming the portal numbers one comune at a time. It does not — an_ua667510 to 667513 are Mieli, a different comune, sitting immediately before Mione. Every volume is now fetched individually or it is not claimed. Logged as a correction.

A marker used to list its volumes in whatever order the providers were walked. It now shows a coverage timeline — Births, Marriages, Deaths — with every hole named and measured. 277 real gaps across 160 places; 1,002 places have none. A one- or two-year hole is called a labelling artefact rather than a loss, except where every volume covers a single year — the Napoleonic comuni — where a missing year is a missing book. That exception is what makes Mione's lost 1807 show as three gaps and not three shrugs.

The «also written» line used to carry nothing but the catalogue's own noise — *«Fažana, Croatia»*. It now carries what the place was called when the register was written: Rijeka as Fiume and Sankt Veit am Flaum, Pazin as Pisino, Gračišće as Gallignana, Svetvinčenat as Sanvincenti. 609 of the 1,190 mapped places have one. Taken from the GeoNames alternate-names column already held offline, with the airport codes, the Mandarin and Cyrillic romanisations, and the modern administrative wrappers («Grad Vodnjan») filtered out — and with spellings that are the same name without hačeks (*Fazhana*, *Svetvinchenat*) folded away rather than listed as identities.

Checked against the full 1,333-parish walk of Croatia Church Books 2040054: Gračišće, Gologorica and Pićan are not in it under any spelling — nor Lindar, Beram, Trviž, Cerovlje, Zarečje, Grdoselo or Kašćerga. Boljun, Kršan and Kozljak are. It is a patterned hole across the whole Pazin hinterland, which is the ground this family comes off. Closed as answered rather than solved. All 3,488 FamilySearch collections have since been walked and none of them holds these parishes — the hole is real and it is FamilySearch's, not a spelling problem. Gračišće, Gologorica and Pićan are at Pazin and nowhere else, which is why their 32, 22 and 4 volumes are catalogued and unopenable, and why they lead the undigitised. The next move is the DAPA request form, which is blocked on David's own data, not on more searching.

Green on what is done, red on the gaps, amber on what is part-done — David's correction, applied to the panel as well as the marker. A record-type heading turns green when every volume of that kind has been read, amber when some have, and stays plain when none have. Individual volumes go green when they have been read, in the collapsed list and in the clickable «open at page one» list alike. Gaps keep their red. Mione now reads at a glance: BIRTHS · ALL READ in green, MARRIAGES · 6 of 18 read in amber, and 1807 in red three times over. All of it done from outside the shared Atlas component, which this session does not own.

Meljani has a single register and the panel was showing it four times: as a record-type heading, as a coverage span, as a volume row, and again in the kit's own «open at page one» list. It is now one line, with the link moved into the row it belongs to and the leftover list removed. The span row only appears where there is a gap to show; the fold only appears where there are more than four volumes. Done from outside the shared component, by matching the two lists on a label the builder deliberately makes identical.

Walked. Six reels, ~3,485 images, and no parish structure at all — the collection browses by film number only. They hang on Delnice itself rather than pretending to a precision the collection does not have. Which parishes each reel covers is a question for the catalogue record, not the browse tree.

Struck: it does not cover the Littoral. The collection has no browse tree — it is a name index of 6.85 million records — so it was searched instead. 289 Defranceschi inside it, every named place Tyrolean: Bozen, Salorno, St. Florian. Three Istrian surnames tested beside it fall the same way. Gračišće, Gologorica and Pićan are not here, and this was the best remaining candidate. The negative is recorded in full.

Struck: Croatia-Slavonia never had Hungarian civil registration. The collection browses by 33 Hungarian counties and not one Croatian one, and there is no Fiume in it. Hungary introduced civil registration in 1895; Croatia-Slavonia kept the parish registers as the legal civil record until 1946. So there is no Croatian civil registration to find — it was never created. The negative, and why it explains Međimurje.

Done. 58 places, 409 volumes, 32 of them Croatian, across three collections filed by Italy, Slovenia and Croatia-by-film. An exonym table puts each on the same dot as its modern name — Csáktornya→Čakovec, Perlak→Prelog, Buie→Buje — with the catalogue's spelling kept in «also written», because that is the name you must search for. It found a gap on day one: Čakovec is missing 1891–1894 in all three record types, the interval between the parish books closing and Hungarian civil registration opening. Neither catalogue could show that alone.

Done, and it is exhaustive. All 3,488 collections listed, every title read, and 44 opened — every Croatian, Austrian, Hungarian and Slovenian one, plus the Italian collections for Gorizia, Trieste, Udine, Venezia, Belluno, Treviso, Padova, Verona and Vicenza. Five hold places on our ground and all five are now on the map. Thirty-nine hold nothing, and each is recorded as a negative so nobody opens it twice. There is no Serbian, Bosnian, Montenegrin or Yugoslav collection at all, and Croatia has exactly two.

It had a page already — Trentino — and what it was missing was the registers. That page opened by saying every one of these people arrived through the family tree and no register had ever been opened for any of them. The Austrian collection walk had found 147 indexed entries, 1608 to 1915, and nobody had put the two together. 146 of the 147 are baptisms. 132 name both parents and 126 name a spouse — more filiation than this archive holds for most of its own Istrian century. They are on the page now. And they sharpen the argument rather than softening it. Nineteen in Carinthia and sixteen in South Tyrol is a scatter, not a cluster, and the surnames run *Franceschini* and *Franzeschini* — Italian names that reached Austria by a different road from the Istrian one. A hundred and seven of the 147 carry no town at all, which is the same index failure this archive already solved for Croatia by resolving the image ark to its film; that resolution has not been run here.

Two collection walks in one evening produced the same structural fact from opposite ends: Hungary registered civilly from 1895 and Croatia-Slavonia did not, keeping the parish books as the legal record until 1946. Written and published on the method page, where it belongs: the Nagodba of 1868 left Croatia-Slavonia its own administration, so Hungary's 1895 civil registration did not reach it and the parish books stayed the legal civil record until 1946. It explains why FamilySearch's Croatian collection is church books, why Pazin's list is parish registers, and why Međimurje is the exception — it was governed as part of Zala county, which is Hungary proper.

FamilySearch has 257 Italian collections; the walk opened the nine that touch the Adriatic and the Veneto. The rest are Naples, Sicily, Piedmont, Puglia — irrelevant to this family's ground, and squarely the business of the Falco and Mazza archives. Decided against, and the reason is scope rather than effort. Naples, Sicily, Piedmont and Puglia are not this family's ground in any century the archive can reach, and walking them would fill this map with a quarter of Italy to no purpose. The nine Adriatic and Veneto collections that could hold Istrian or Carnian material have been walked and are on the collections walk. The list is worth handing over rather than working: the Falco and Mazza archives sit on southern Italian ground and the same walk would be their whole first week. Recorded here as a decision so that the next session does not re-open it.

A second layer on the research map that is not about books at all: 160 towns, 956 placements of documented people, 106 of the towns outside Croatia — Torrington, Memphis, Pfullingen, Broken Hill, Brisbane. Lifted whole out of `atlas.json` rather than geocoded a second time, stripped of its film lists so no register is offered twice, and switched off by default with a violet filter button that turns it on. 43 towns carry both a people marker and a shelf marker.

The research map, the atlas and the graves map were three maps of the same ground with three geocoders and three legends. 1,235 + 160 + 64 markers are 1,358 places; 84 answer more than one of the three questions and 12 answer all three. The colour switches between the questions; the panel never does. `/research-map/`, `/atlas/` and `/graves-map/` redirect.

The living rule changed on 15 September: name and town, never a date. All eleven living people the archive names are now placed — David and Cheryl at Johannesburg and Brisbane; Cristina, Alessio and Mateo at Brisbane; Ada, Horst, Mark, Gayle, Nicole and Kirsten at Johannesburg, on David's word of the same day. Robbie — deceased, no date held — is placed at Johannesburg too, marked inferred: his wife and both his daughters are there and nothing in the archive names a town for him.

Folded into one row. He was Mario De Franceschi 1938–2013 off a Find a Grave memorial and Mario Defranceschi 1938–2013 out of MyHeritage 4507883 — two slugs under `/who/`, two dots in Brisbane, one man. The surviving row carries both spellings and both sources. The heading on this row was wrong twice over. It said «David's father», which is what the mis-flagged rows had made this archive believe; his father is Ivan Anton Defranceski, 1951–2026. Correction 79.

Answered: yes. He is Anton Mario De Franceski, born 21 August 1944 at Reutlingen — Zdravko and Ruža's only child, four years old on the *General M B Stewart*. Eight NAA items say so, including A11534, 58–60, which carries all three dates of birth in one line, and D4881, his own arrival card, which gives the middle name and the Australian spelling. Two corrections came out of it: he was four on the ship and not nine, and «Zorafko» at Horsham is Zdravko, so that is one burial and not two.

The card runs 13 April 1949 to 31 December 1976 and is held at Adelaide; it should carry addresses, and it is the cheapest route to how a Horsham boy ended up at Ipswich. Ryerson Index — free, covers Australian death notices for 1999 — was returning «Server Overloaded» on 15 September and needs another run; a funeral notice would name a wife and children, and would settle the two-year gap between the cemetery's age and four documents.

The roster's family-file source is a GEDCOM of July 2018 — 8,286 people. The live tree has 15,643. A note of 7 September already said the export was retired and read 459 individuals of the surname out of the live tree; that reading was never imported. The Australian branch went in on 15 September — fifteen people — because David asked why his cousin's sister at Horsham was missing. The rest of the tree is still outstanding, and every one of the 513 roster rows carrying a 2018 identifier needs checking against it. 16 September: the live tree is finally readable. The reconciliation is published and names the 668 people the roster does not have and the 14 dates the two sides disagree on. Importing them is the next pass, and it is a judgement call each time — a tree absorbs other people's Smart Matches, and this archive does not publish somebody else's guess as a fact. --- 20–21 September: the import happened, and the number is 84, not 668. Eighty-four people came out of the live tree and into the roster — the ones the reconciliation found in the tree and in no pen of David's own. The other 486 of the 668 were already inside his pens, tested and parked, so importing them would have duplicated work rather than added it. Item 93 is done. Every imported row carries its own caveat in its own note — *«Tree-derived: no register has been read for this person here»*, graded inf, with the tree named as the source and the date of the reading. That is the whole point of the pass: the archive now holds these people *and* holds the fact that nothing has been proved about them. And one of them stopped being tree-derived the next day. *Dionigi de Franceschi, b. 1927, Gračišće* came in on 20 September with that caveat; on 21 September the Dachau entry register named him — *«DEFRANCESCHI, DIONIGI, born 17 September 1927 at GALLIGNANA»* — and the caveat came off. That is what the caveat is for: it marks the rows worth attacking. What remains on this item is the other half: the 513 roster rows carrying a 2018 GEDCOM identifier, each of which needs checking against the live tree. None of that has been done.

Born at Crikvenica in 1915, married name Oreščanin, died at Belgrade in 1944. That is the whole of it. A Croatian woman of twenty-nine dying in occupied Belgrade in 1944 is a question, not a fact — and this archive has never asked it. Arolsen, the Belgrade city registry and the Yugoslav victims' census are the places to start. The tree adds two husbands and deepens the question. Josip Geiger, 1911–1936, dead at twenty-five when she was twenty-one; then Branko Oreščanin, whose name she carries. And her mother Ursula died at Belgrade too, in 1975 — two women of one family dead in that city, thirty-one years apart. There is now a second surname to search Arolsen and the Yugoslav victims' census on. Arolsen searched on 16 September and she is not in it. No person record for *Defranceski Anka*; no match under Oreščanin or Geiger either. Her brothers are all over that archive — the surname returns 79 person records — and she is not, which says she died at Belgrade outside the German system. The Belgrade city registry and the Yugoslav victims' census are what is left. *And the 79 is a finding on its own*: this archive has read exactly one Arolsen file. --- 20 September: a second door closed, and it narrows the question rather than answering it. The Jasenovac named victims list was searched on the surname in three spellings — all zero — and on both her married names. *Oreščanin* returns four people, none of them a woman born at Crikvenica in 1915; *Geiger* returns two, neither her first husband, who died in 1936 in any case. A control on a common surname was run first, so the zeros mean something. On the research log. Two systems have now said no. Arolsen: she is outside the German records. Jasenovac: she is outside the Ustaša camp records. That leaves the city itself, and it points the search at Serbian holdings this archive has never opened: · the Belgrade city death register for 1944, at the Matična služba; · the Historical Archives of Belgrade, which hold the Banjica camp inmate books — the one Belgrade institution that would record a detained woman; · the 1964 Yugoslav census of war victims, at the Archives of Yugoslavia, which counts civilian deaths by cause and place; · and, because it is the single likeliest civilian cause in that city and year, the casualty lists of the Allied bombing of Belgrade, heaviest on 16 April 1944, Easter Sunday, when something over a thousand civilians were killed. *inf — that is a hypothesis about a date, not a claim about her; nothing in this archive yet ties her to it.* ⚠ 29 September 2026 — one of the two remaining routes is now closed, with a negative. *The [Museum of Genocide Victims' census at Belgrade](https://baza.muzejgenocida.rs/) — 659,122 records — does not hold her. Seven spellings tried and named in Searched; none returns an Anka.* She is not in the Yugoslav victims' census. *That leaves the Belgrade city registry, which is the one route this item has never had a way into. It needs a written request, and it is David's to send.* What the same search did give: three others of the name, none of them her — *Anton of Gologorica who died at Dachau, and two young men of Vodnjan.*

Three living children of the Australian branch are now named on the map with no dates and a town — Charlotte Rita Baviello, Louis Hendy and Lewis Rose, alongside Alessio and Mateo. That follows the rule as David set it: name and town, never a date. They are other people's children rather than David's, and if he would rather they were not named at all, it is one line to take them off.

David exported it on 16 September, and the one click did what a fortnight of crawling could not. 15,643 people, 4,777 families, 1,413 of the surname — not 798, and not 459. The walk's count was an undercount too, because following family links only reaches people the tree has joined up. The whole reconciliation is published: 415 agree, 14 disagree, 668 are new here and 780 are ours alone. The GEDCOM itself is not committed and will not be — it carries dates of birth for 117 living people of the name, and this site is public.

689 of the 1,413 carry a citation, not 313. They are not where the crawl was looking: MyHeritage files its own Smart-Match plumbing under «SOUR», and the citations David typed by hand sit in «NOTE» records. Reading the wrong tag found 272. Reading the right one found 689. Between them they name 405 distinct FamilySearch arks — 311 indexed records and 94 film images — and 328 of those arks appear nowhere in this repository. What they cite, and which of it is new.

One typo, one person. *Defraneski* returns Lisa and nothing else; *De Francesci, Defrancheski, Defranceshi, Defrancesky, Defranchesci, Defrancesci* and *Franzeschini* all return zero. The blind spot was real and it was one letter wide. Sideways find: Franceschini returns a Brazilian-forename group — Aurelio 1892, Turno 1894, Aristeu 1901, Tosca 1907 — which belongs with Trentino.

Read, and it is better than the row predicted. David built a node called «PLACEHOLDERS Defranceschi's for Investigation (not real)» with twenty-three children, one per country, and under the Croatian one seventeen more, one per town — including Gologorica and Gračišće. Australia is filed by state, and Mario of Brisbane hangs under QLD: David had filed him as unconnected himself, years before this archive claimed him and had to take it back. Published on the diaspora page.

Run, and twelve rows failed it. The test is written down for the first time: *«mine» means this archive can NAME the path from this person to David* — a place on the direct line, a named relationship, or a household the archive has drawn. A shared surname on a gravestone is not a path. Twelve Find a Grave memorials came off the flag — Millbrook, the Bronx, East Farmingdale, Middle Village, Hartsdale, and the Lilydale, Fawkner and Parkville Italians the diaspora page had already filed under a different migration. 187 rows keep it. Correction 80.

Done. About now carries the live tree as a source in its own right — 15,643 people, tree 4, read 7 and 15 September — and the July 2018 export is marked SUPERSEDED in its own title, with the reason on it.

Done: `scripts/gazcheck.py`. Every map builder now dies with a message naming the path it was given when its gazetteer comes back short. Tested with a wrong directory: exit 2, nothing written.

Done, in the same file. A builder that places fewer places than its own last output refuses to write and says by how many. `--allow-shrink` is there for a fall that is real and intended.

Named, and there are three children rather than two. Ursula (Korn), born at Urach 1940; Renata (Buck), born at Metzingen 1945; and Peter, whom the Arolsen cards do not mention at all. Their mother is Luise Salzer, born 1919. All three are living — eighty-six, eighty-one, and undated — and are on the archive now by name and town, which the present rule allows and the old one did not.

Asked, and the answer is that there is no answer in the tree. She is a spouse node with no dates, no places, no children and no maiden name; «Koka» is a pet name. She is on the roster now as exactly that, and as an open question — David's grandfather had twenty-six years at Senj after the divorce and this is the only trace of them.

Codron is a later husband, not a maiden name. Hedviga married Santou (Shemtov) Isaac Codron, 1913–1997, and the tree names a third husband, Ladislav Carr; her parents are Ljubomir Blažević and Milka Papić. And the question paid for itself twice over. She reached South Africa in April 1975, from Zimbabwe — a whole leg of this family's journey that no page of this archive had — and her birth date is settled at 3 August 1926, where the archive had carried two transposed dates and preferred neither.

Naturalisation at Melbourne in 1978, twenty-nine years after they landed and a year before he died. The date and the address no longer depend on the file: the Commonwealth Gazette prints them — 21 July 1978, 19 Anderson Street, Horsham, read on Trove. What is still only in the file is occupation, arrival particulars and a photograph, and this archive has no photograph of either of them. Access status «not yet examined», which means it has to be asked for before it can be read.

Checked, and the answer is none of them. All eight items are «Open» and not digitised — A11534, both B44 naturalisations, the three A2571 alien registrations and the two B78 cards. «Open» in RecordSearch means readable, not scanned, which is exactly the distinction this check existed to draw. It turns the whole Australian side of this family from a search into an order, and the two B44 files are still «not yet examined», so access has to be applied for before a copy can be. They should go in one request rather than eight.

Turned into an errand rather than a search, because it was never a search. The free Victorian index returns a name, a year and a registration number; the parents are on the certificate, which has to be applied and paid for. Zdravko's 1979 death is inside the open window and is written up as an errand; Ruža's 1996 death is not — Victoria releases deaths at thirty years. Separately: the BDM search form could not be driven from either browser here. Its Angular model ignores values set programmatically, and real typing needs a browser pane this session does not have. One minute of David's own browser.

Done, 17 September 2026, and it paid twice. *Commonwealth of Australia Gazette. Periodic*, No. P2 of 16 February 1979, page 66, under VICTORIA: *«Defranceski, Zdravko, 19 Anderson St, Horsham 3400, 21 7 78»* and Roza on the line above — naturalised 21 July 1978 at Horsham, not Melbourne. And No. P8 of 25 October 1978, page 303, under SOUTH AUSTRALIA: *«De Franceski, Anton Mario, 7 Calomba Cres, Happy Valley 5159, 15 2 78»* — the son, five months earlier, in another state. The whole story.

Run, and the answer is nothing — weakly. No result for the surname in Trove's newspapers across the 1940s or the 1950s. Trove's newspaper digitisation mostly stops in 1954 and whether the *Wimmera Mail-Times* is held for 1949–54 has not been established, so this rules out the easy version and not much more. On the search register.

Both are in the live tree, both deceased, and neither is in this archive. Ruža was born at Fužine on 13 February 1922 — her own town certificate says so against a single Arolsen entry that reads 2 May — and a second place, Belnica, appears on the Neuhausen list. The Hreljac line enters this family through her and has never been opened. Checked 15 September: Fužine's films stop at 1889 and Ruža was born in 1922, so her own baptism is not on any film this archive can reach. Her parents Lovre and Dragica married before that, though, and Fužine marriages 1778–1857 and births 1725–1889 are clickable from the map — that is where to look for the Hreljac household, not for her. 17 September: Arolsen gives her a date and a spelling. *«DEFRANCESKI · Rose · HRELJEC · Fuzinä / Belnica · 02/13/1922»* — born 13 February 1922 at Fužine, with Belnica beside it. The German clerk heard Hreljec; this archive has Hreljac. The Fužine registers settle which, and now they can be searched on a date. 20 Sept — searched, and the item points at the wrong parish. No Hreljac record at Fužine at all. The surname clusters at Grižane, Tribalj and Bakar — the Vinodol, the same valley as Crikvenica and Klenovica. One candidate: *«Lovra Hreljac, born and baptised 4 September 1883 at Grižane»*, son of Stepan Hreljac and Agna Barac (`6YBK-YPMM`). Ruža was born 1922, so the age fits exactly. `inf` — nothing ties him to Fužine or to a Dragica Vlahović, and no such marriage is indexed. Read Grižane, not Fužine. Fužine may hold the wedding; the household is Vinodol. --- 21 September 2026 — FamilySearch is ruled out, and the ruling-out was tested. Exact-surname *Hreljac* across Croatia born 1918–1926 returns 0; the same query without the date range returns 340, which proves the service was answering rather than quietly failing. A place query on Fužine returns nine records and not one of them is a Fužine record — the word appears nowhere on the page. The indexed Hreljac material is Grižane, Lussinpiccolo and emigration sets. Fužine's registers are not in this index at all. This item should merge into the Rijeka enquiry rather than stand alone. Item 141 already asks Rijeka for the Klenovica and Ledenice books; Fužine is the same archive and the same period, and Ruža's parents are now a register question, not a search question.

Both answered. Fužine is on the map with five volumes, all of them now clickable — births 1725–1778, 1778–1857 and 1858–1889, marriages 1778–1857, deaths to 1916 — and it is in the main Croatian collection, not in Delnice. Belnica is on no catalogue this archive holds and is not on the map; it is a hamlet rather than a parish, and whatever it means on Ruža's Neuhausen entry it is not a register office.

Answered, and it is an order rather than a search. FamilySearch's Crikvenica films are cut at Rođeni 1896 — the hundred-year line as it stood when they were made — so all five children of Anton Rudolf and Ursula were born after the end of the only collection this archive can reach for free. They are all on one reel. HR-HDA-1448, R 1909–1926, roll ZM-34J/362, mark M-6957, Matični ured Crikvenica, digitised: Josip Petar 1911, Petar Vid 1913, Anka Nera 1915, Zdravko 1921 and Ivan Anton 1925. Written up as an errand with the Status animarum and the 1909–1947 marriages, which come off the same collection and should go in one request. Crikvenica births 1897–1908 are in neither collection — that stretch holds Ruža Jarmacki born 1903 and the POLD… of the monument, and it needs the parish office or the Rijeka archdiocesan archive.

The archive and the tree both say «circa 1943, Crikvenica». His son Zdravko was taken by the Partisans that same year. A death in occupied Croatia in 1943 with no date is a gap worth closing, and the Crikvenica death register is the place it closes. Checked: it cannot be searched, only asked for. Crikvenica deaths on film stop at 1908; the 1943 register sits with the Matični ured, and the errand for it has been standing since before this session. The same office holds the 1909–1926 births. 17 September: an Anton born 20 January 1890 is in Arolsen's 2.3.3.1, which is the ITS collection of documents whose names were never captured into the main index. That is Anton Rudolf's own birth date. Why a man who died at Crikvenica in 1943 has a record in a tracing collection is worth one look — it may be a search his own children filed for him after the war, and a tracing enquiry usually states the death it was answering.

Josip Defranceschi, generation 4 — Gračišće to Crikvenica. The archive draws the move and has never explained it. It is the second unexplained jump in the line, after Mione to Gologorica, and unlike the first one it happens inside the nineteenth century with registers on both ends. --- 21 September 2026 — out of reach of full-text search, measured. FamilySearch full-text indexes Italian civil registration, not the Croatia Church Books: 97 collections sampled from its own results carry zero Croatian entries. This item is a Croatian church register and no query will reach it. It stays an archive question.

Anton Rudolf is «born 20 January 1890, Ledenice / Klenovica 22». A house number is an address the land registers and the church's *status animarum* can both be searched on, and this archive has done neither. It is the Kvarner equivalent of Gologorica's house 17. --- 20 September 2026 — the house is identified, from the Ledenice baptisms. The register names one house four ways between 1861 and 1877 — Klenovica, Rljinovica, Rljenovice, Povile — and the number is 22 every time, with the same parents, Josip Kalanj and Rosalija née Perković. The 1861 entry spells it out: «Ledenice in Klenovica N° 22». Anna Kalanj was born there on 3 January 1864, and her son Anton Rudolf was born there on 20 January 1890. The 1890 remark — *«kod roditelja žene Ane»* — is naming this household, and the godfather Jakov Kalanj of house 22 belongs to it. *Still open:* whether Povile 22 is literally the same building or a neighbouring hamlet's house of the same number. The parish, the number and the parents are firm; the building's own village name is not settled by these entries alone. --- 21 September 2026 — out of reach of full-text search, measured. FamilySearch full-text indexes Italian civil registration, not the Croatia Church Books: 97 collections sampled from its own results carry zero Croatian entries. This item is a Croatian church register and no query will reach it. It stays an archive question.

Overtaken. The harvest finished the whole queue before a priority order was worth building — all 5,482 volumes are linkable, Senj's fifteen among them. Worth doing if the queue is ever regenerated at that size again; not worth doing now.

Done — four volumes pinned, and six places now have a book of their own opened instead of two. Gračišće's baptism book 1667–1745 and Donji Proložac's deaths 1837–1859 are read right through; Svetvinčenat's 1663–1708 and Vodnjan's 1815–1884 reel are read in part. «Part read» now counts as started.

Done. A teal marker prints the rows themselves under a heading that says not one of them is a volume from the shelf above. Žminj shows *«Libri žminjski, libar drugi (Žminj 2008) — partial»*; a place with more than twelve says how many more.

Done, 17 September 2026, and this row was wrong twice. They *could* be placed from this repository: `data/parish-by-record-2026-09.txt` holds the sweep's per-record output — ninety-three parishes, 952 persona ids — and had done since 8 September. All thirty-six placed with no FamilySearch search at all: twenty-five on the id already held, eleven on the twin rule — the same burial indexed twice under ids differing in the last character only. Svetvinčenat 14 · Pula 8 · Draguč 6 · Rovinj 3 · Vrsar 2 · Šterna 2 · Vižinada 1, four of them parishes new to the register of the dead. A bad pin fell out on the way: Šterna had been resolving to Greece. The correction.

Checked at 375px and it holds — scrollWidth equals clientWidth, so nothing pushes the page sideways. One fix made: the three question buttons size to their own text, which made a ragged left edge on a phone, so below 640px they go full width.

Done by building `data/gazetteer.json` — 2,456 places distilled from the GeoNames dumps by `scripts/build-gazetteer.py` and committed, so no builder needs the seventy-seven megabytes of dumps to run. The atlas gained six places by it. The seed keeps only what a gazetteer genuinely cannot resolve, and says so.

Gone. `build-atlas.py` reads the committed gazetteer; the seventeen hand-checked places the old file carried have been folded in and marked as hand-checked. The file is read if it happens to be there and nothing breaks when it is not.

Hedviga «Seka» Blažević was born at Senj in 1926 and married Ivan Anton there; both registers are with the Matični ured, past the end of every film. The errand is drafted and waits on David's own details, like the DAPA forms. The live tree carries her as «Blažević (Codron)», which implies a marriage this archive has never heard of — the same register would settle that too.

Nine printed titles stand pending on the search register and they are the secondary literature of this family's own historian: Camillo's *Storia documentata della Contea di Pisino* and *Povijest Pazinske knežije*, Carlo's *Uspomene*, Bertoša's two, Jelinčić, Gentileo's bibliography, the 1788 visitation and the *Atti e memorie* obituary. Four of them are one order from the Pula university library. They are the cheapest unexploited body of material the archive has.

Vergé-Franceschi's «Le cap Corse: généalogies et destins» (2006) is the reference work for Cap Corse families, and the archive holds four Corsican graves at Tomino and Mandolacce. It would settle in one afternoon whether that household is a fourth population of the surname or a branch with a route to it. Not yet obtained.

Listed as «untested» on the search register and left there. FamilySearch's full-text search reads the handwriting of unindexed images, which is precisely the state of every Croatian register this archive has catalogued: 5,489 volumes, none of them name-indexed. If it works on Istrian parish hands it changes the shape of this whole archive. One afternoon to find out. Blocked on 16 September: the FamilySearch session is signed out. Full-text search redirects to the login page and the persona API stopped answering at the same time. This archive does not enter credentials. One sign-in from David and this runs. --- 21 September 2026 — it has now been tried, and it worked on the first query. Full-text search runs from a signed-in in-app browser without difficulty: *Defranceschi* returns 3,967 documents, and the plain query *Rotilio Defranceschi* produced the Trieste marriage proclamation that settled item 125 — a document no name index holds. This item is closed as answered, and the service should now be run against the rest of this list.

`requests/arolsen-td-349822.md` — the Arolsen tracing case that stood open on Petar for thirty years, eight documents withheld online. `requests/nsk-de-franceschi-archive.md` — the De Franceschi archive at the National and University Library. Both are written and waiting on a signature. ⚠ 29 September 2026 — David: «not sending letters yet.» This item waits on that decision and is not to be raised again until he lifts it. *Recorded once, here, so no session re-opens it by suggesting the letter afresh.*

Udine's Notarile antico B. 2979; the Veritas register for the *Aquilone*; the «Famiglia Franceschi» notice in *Il Rammentatore zaratino* 1859; and the Vienna Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv correspondence of December 1918 naming a «Dr Defranceschi». Each is drafted on the errands page and each needs the same thing: a name and an address on the form. ⚠ 29 September 2026 — David: «not sending letters yet.» This item waits on that decision and is not to be raised again until he lifts it. *Recorded once, here, so no session re-opens it by suggesting the letter afresh.*

Rijeka HR-DARI-382 kut. 1; Zadar's Prijamni ured; Bakar's parish registers; the Stemmi della nobiltà di Buccari; Stare hrvatske novine at dnc.nsk.hr; the Arolsen online collections; and the Museu da Imigração at São Paulo. Seven rows on the search register that say *pending* and have said it for a week. Several are free and online and simply have not been opened. --- Two more of the seven closed on 21 September, and they closed in opposite directions. Arolsen is open again, and it was worth the wait. On 10 September the collections server timed out; it now answers. Searched under the -schi spelling — which this archive had never tried, having listed 79 records under -ski — it gives 38 people and 9 archival units, and they are a *different* set. The find is DIONIGI DEFRANCESCHI, born 17 September 1927 at GALLIGNANA — that is Gračišće — prisoner 142393 at Dachau, carried by four separate Dachau series. He was a tree-only name in this roster until today. The full reading is on the search register, with three Istrian displaced-persons households — Dignano, Pola, Trieste — that this archive had never held, and twenty-four new people. São Paulo is not empty, it is broken. The Museu da Imigração's enrolment search at `/acervo/registro-de-matricula` returns HTTP 500 for every query — *Rossi* and *Silva* included — so a nil there would have been a fabrication. The museum's own e-book says the collection went to the Arquivo Público do Estado de São Paulo in 2011, and APESP sits behind a bot-protection layer this archive does not go around. That row stays pending on purpose. Still open: four. Rijeka HR-DARI-382 kut. 1, Zadar's *Prijamni ured*, the Bakar parish registers and the *Stemmi della nobiltà di Buccari* — all four are requests to an archive or a library, not clicks. 27 September — São Paulo is back, and it is the biggest of the seven. *The Hospedaria de Imigrantes enrolment register at `museudaimigracao.org.br` returned HTTP 500 to every query on 21 September. It now answers, and returns 184 records on the surname stem, each with an arrival date, an age, a relationship and a family number that groups a household across the register.* Nothing is harvested yet, and *the 184 sweep in Franceschini and other names the stem catches, which are a different surname and have to be separated before a single figure is published.* --- 28 September — São Paulo harvested whole: 184 records, and one of them is the only Austrian in the set. *The Hospedaria de Imigrantes enrolment registers are in `data/harvest/saopaulo-hospedaria.json`. 184 reported, 184 harvested — nineteen pages, and the file was only written once the two numbers agreed.* *The pagination parameter is `page`, and it appears in the markup as `&amp;page=`, which a `[?&]page=` pattern will not match.* The stem is not one surname. *Of 184 rows, only 73 are exactly FRANCESCHI or DE FRANCESCHI. The rest are FRANCESCHINI (79), Franceschin, Franceschine, Franceschino, Colafranceschi, Gianfranceschi and nine others — different names, and none of them this one.* ⚠ FRANCESCA FRANCESCHI, «AUSTRIACA», aged 37, landed 22 May 1888. *Of the seventy-three, seventy-two are Italian nationals and she is the only Austrian. Istria, Fiume and Dalmatia were Austrian in 1888, so she is the only person in the whole register who carries the nationality this family would have carried.* *She is entered as MÃE — mother — under família 01538, so she did not arrive alone, and the family number groups the rest of her household on the same page.* The register page is published as a PDF, `L011_187.pdf`. *Nothing connects her to this family and nothing here claims it. What makes her worth a line is the process of elimination: if any of the 184 belongs to this archive's people, it is the Austrian one.* And the família number does what this archive hoped it would. *Four men land together on 27 April 1887 under consecutive numbers — Gio Batta (46700), Giuseppe (46710), Pietro (46711), Antonio (46720) — which is a group, not four coincidences.* 28 September — the register page is read, and the Austrian is a widow-shaped household of five. *`L011_187.pdf` is a scan with no text layer; the embedded JPEG was extracted and magnified. Matrícula dos Immigrantes entrados no Alojamento Provincial de Immigração em São Paulo, livro 011, page 187:* · 100927 — Franceschi, Francesca — «Mãi» — 37 — «c» — «Austria» — «Agricultor» — «Santos» — Maio 22 · *100928 — Giuseppe, filho, 14* · *100929 — Fortunato, 11* · *100930 — Maria, 9* · *100931 — Luigi, 6* Five people on consecutive numbers, and no husband on the page. *A married woman of thirty-seven arriving with four children and entered as the mother of the party is the shape a widow makes, or a wife travelling ahead of a husband — the register does not say which.* *All five are on the roster with estimated years only, because an age written by a clerk is not a birth date.* The third child is Fortunato, not Vittorio — *the first reading of the page at full-page scale said Vittorio, and magnifying the block corrected it before it was written down.* Still nothing connects them to this family. *What the page adds is that the one Austrian entry is not a lone traveller but a household, which is a thing that can be searched for at the other end.* --- 28 September 2026 — the newspaper row closes, and this item had it filed twice, two different ways. ⚠ It was not «never opened». *The sources entry for `dnc-nsk` recorded a completed search of this portal, with findings — while this item carried the same portal as pending. The archive searched it, wrote it up under Sources, and left the worklist row open. A re-run then read the row, believed it, and reported a first opening.* `dnc.nsk.hr` answers on `http://` and refuses `https://`. *That is the whole reason this row sat «pending» — the archive had recorded the host and not the scheme, and two attempts on `https` came back as «denied or failed», which reads exactly like a dead site.* A row that says «not opened» should say which URL was tried. Opened, it gives fifty hits — *46 «Defranceschi», 4 «Defranceski», 1845 to 1920* — and three seams: the «Aquilone» seen from the Austro-Hungarian side with five new voyages including Cardiff in August 1876; a Defranceschi standing as the Italian candidate in the 1879 Istrian election and beating the Croatian dr. Klodić in the rural communes; and Antun Defranceski, an accounting councillor in the Zagreb administration from 1863. Full reading on /searched/. Still open: three. *Rijeka HR-DARI-382 kut. 1, Zadar's «Prijamni ured» and the Bakar parish registers. The «Stemmi della nobiltà di Buccari» and the newspaper portal are now closed, and São Paulo stays pending on purpose behind its bot protection.* All twenty «Primorac» sightings were read the same day, and they did roughly double the voyage table — *from 22 rows to 42, and the West Indies run to Guadeloupe is now printed rather than inferred.*

Handed over on the Senj line page, named and dated and not written up: her parents Ljubomir 1892–1966 and Milka 1886–1971, and six siblings — Leo 1920–2008, Karmela «Carmen» 1922–1987, Oto 1923–1945, Ljubomir 1929–2007, Mario 1933–1984, Anton. What belongs here is the join, which is Hedviga. The rest is [the Blažević Archive's](https://daviddef.github.io/TheBlazevic/) ground, and a second family reconstructed on a page about a different surname is how an estate ends up with two versions of one person.

Walked: forty-nine nodes and 160 named people inside them, counted pen by pen and published as a table. Brazil 22, the United States 19, Italy 18, Croatia 16, Austria 14, Venezuela 10 — and Brazil being the largest is exactly what this archive had already written from the other direction. None of the 160 is in the roster. Reading each of them properly — name by name, against the records — is the next thing, and it is a body of work rather than a row.

The row said «160 named individuals». It was a count of the folders. The pens hold 1,448 nodes, of which 1,054 carry a date: twenty-three country folders, each with town folders beneath it — *Rijeka, Gračišće, Gologorica, Pula, Bakar, Sovinjak, Labin, Poreč, Kaštelir* — and the people under those. They go back to a Nicolo Franceschi of 1318 and a Zadar line from 1436. And they explain the 668. 486 of the «668 people only in the tree» are inside these pens — David has already tested and parked them, which is the opposite of untouched work. Correction 92. What is left is 84, and it is the good list — Ližnjan, Crikvenica, Gračišće, Gologorica, Brooklyn, and two beside Pfullingen. *It was announced as 113 for an hour, on a join that compared whole sets of given names and so reported the top of David's own male line as a stranger. He was in the roster all along. Correction 92.* So the job is no longer «read 160 strangers». It is import the 84, starting with the ones in parishes this archive has already read, and leave the pens as the judgement David already made. Done, 20 September 2026 — the eighty-four are imported. 82 new roster rows; two of the eighty-four (*Antonio De Franceschi*, *Maria Defranceschi*) were already on the roster under the same name and were skipped rather than duplicated. The roster goes 1,225 → 1,307. Twenty-five of them are living, and they are here by name and by town and by nothing else — no birth year, no death year, no photograph, exactly as the rule has stood since 15 September. The living gate passes on all of them. Where they land: Ližnjan 7, Gračišće 6, Crikvenica 5, Brooklyn 5, Gologorica 4, Allentown 2, and singles at Trieste, Venice, Varaždin, Gallignana, Mercedes, Ellis Island, Urach, Metzingen, Horsham, Johannesburg and Castelgomberto. Thirty-nine have no place at all, which is the next job on them. Every row says what it is: `src: myheritage`, and a note reading *«Tree-derived: no register has been read for this person here»*. They are `inf` — the tree's own word, and nothing else yet. That is the honest state, and it is better than being invisible.

Done, and the answer is reassuring rather than startling: all seventy-nine are this family. Five collections. 3.1.1.1 (21 rows) is the same seven people under every spelling a clerk could manage — *Lujza, Luiza, Lusza, Luise*; *Petar, Peter*; *Zdrafko, Zdravko, Ztravko*. 2.1.3.1 (13) adds the town to each: Crikvenica, Fužine, Neuhausen, Urach, Metzingen, Reutlingen. 2.2.2.1, the War Time Card File — registration cards and employees' record books — holds Felix, Ivan, Peter and Zdravko. 2.3.3.1 has seven more including an Anton born 20 January 1890. 3.1.3.2 is the IRO period and, under its own heading, «Emigrations in 1949». Three things the archive did not have. The CM/1 personal file, 3.2.1.1 ref 32110000 058.158, whose own title says *«and of further persons»* — now an errand. Ruža spelled HRELJEC, born 13 February 1922 at Fužine / Belnica, which is a date this archive did not have under any spelling. And a card with Ivan's name on it — David's grandfather, nineteen years old, in a German employment file. *The row said this was «one of the cheapest bodies of unread material the archive has». It was right, and it took an hour.*

Done. Walked volume by volume from the fonds page on 17 September: Pola 1 · Triest AB 4 · Triest HB 3 · Görz 1, from 1848 to 1918, and every one of them opens without an account. They are a ninth provider in the builder and listed under the map with an address each — not on the markers, because the panel builds FamilySearch addresses and these are not FamilySearch, which is the same reason Antenati opens from its own page. Two things had to be fixed to receive them. The record-type classifier knew five languages and not German, so *Taufbuch*, *Taufen* and *Tote* all fell into «Other» — it now reads them, and Gorizia's one volume is filed as a birth register rather than as something unclassifiable. And the «why is there no link» sentence had two branches and needed a third: a Matricula volume is not an unharvested address, it is an address somewhere else.

Nine households were added on 16 September so that the person pages could draw a family at all — Anton Rudolf and Ursula at Crikvenica, Zdravko and Ruža, Antony and Marion, Petrica and Michael, Ivan and Hedviga at Senj, Josip Petar and Božica, Petar Vid and Luise, and the two living generations at Johannesburg and Brisbane. Every one of them is marked `src: tree` and says so on its own row: built from David's family tree and from the Arolsen file, the ship's manifest and the National Archives of Australia. Not one parish register has been read for any of them. The books that would confirm them are already named and already ordered on the errands — Crikvenica births 1909–1926 for five of the children in the first household, and Senj 1926 and 1948 for the fifth. When those come back, these households stop being tree-shaped and start being read.

`/map/` lifts its whole instrument into one fixed layer and asks for native fullscreen on top of it, and carries its entire view in the address bar — layers, basemap, find box, which filters are off, and where the map is looking. Both are written in `AtlasTimelineTint.astro`, which is this archive's own component and not the kit. The per-provider maps under `/map/<source>/` have neither, and neither does any other archive on the estate. A shareable map view is worth more to six archives than to one. If it earns its keep here it belongs in the kit — that is a conversation with whoever owns the shared UI, not a change to make quietly.

Eight rows on this list are stalled on Antenati returning 403 Forbidden, and they do not have to be. The tree cites Italia, Udine, Stato Civile (Archivio di Stato), 1806-1815 twenty-six times — Mione, Paluzza, Illegio, Naunina — and 22 of those 26 people are already in this archive's roster, read off Antenati's images of the same registers. Two sources worked apart, agreeing. Which means FamilySearch has indexed the volumes Antenati will not serve. Collection 1939238 is already a provider here («fs-it»). Searching its index for the surname, comune by comune, reaches the entries without reaching the images — and the four Udine-cited people who are not in the roster say there is more in it than we have taken. Where the numbers come from. Done, 20 September 2026 — and it opened the second door. The persona index takes `q.anyPlace` (`f.recordPlace` returns nothing; `f.collectionId` does not bind), so it was searched comune by comune and then swept across four hundred Udine records. Nine records of the name in Carnia, eight of them at Paluzza and its hamlet Naunina, none of them in this archive. All nine are now on the roster with their ids. The prize is Zuanne. *«Daniele De Franceschi, 1782, Paluzza, son of Zuanne De Franceschi and Maria Delli Zolti»* — and Daniele fathers Maria Anna at Paluzza in 1810 on Maria Silverio. Four generations at the place this archive has been calling its second door into the Val di Gorto and never opened. What this does for the eight stalled rows: it proves the route. *The images are still Antenati's and still 403* — but the entries are readable without them, and the parents come with the entry. Any Antenati-blocked item whose question is «who are the parents» can now be asked here first. Not taken: the *Francescone / Francesconi* of Udine city, which is a different surname. Left open: Illegio, and whether «Soravito De Franceschi» of Ovaro is inside this study's scope.

Done, 17 September 2026 — and it was eight, not seven. The pen holds five households and eight baptisms in Santa Fe province between 1899 and 1918, with the surname in *second* position in three of them, which is why no search had ever returned them. Outside the pen it also produced Joso Defranceski of Ližnjan, dead at Buenos Aires in 1970 — the first Istrian of the name this project can place in Argentina — and one testable record against Rotilio. Where the name went now has Argentina.

Done the same day. 409 waypoints called, 409 arks, not one error. Every volume in both collections is clickable now — 38 in Pola and Trieste across eleven Istrian and Triestine parishes, and 371 in Prekmurje and Međimurje across forty-seven towns filed under their Hungarian names. Čakovec as *Csáktornya*, Buje as *Buie*, Lendava as *Alsólendva*. The trick that made it cheap: a FamilySearch waypoint id is «PREFIX:ancestor,ancestor,…» and the API answers on the prefix alone, so the whole job rode on a four-kilobyte list instead of a thirty-four kilobyte one. Paced at 2.2 seconds a call, which is the spacing that has never once drawn a throttle. Four waypoints returned an ark another had already returned — not a fault. Muraszombat's district register covered several villages, was filmed once, and hangs under each of them. No place on the map is now unlinked for want of an errand. The ones that still have no link have a reason: eight are Pazin catalogue entries with no images anywhere, nine are Antenati's and open from their own page.

David took a one-month full subscription on 16 September 2026. Every previous pass ran against a clock: the 9 September trial and the one that lapsed on 14 September are both on the search register, sixteen rows between them, and both end with a note about reading transcripts before the trial died. What is already in: all 38 record sets the surname touches, paged out under three spellings; 314 movement records (221 published); 153 newspaper articles; the American naturalisation files and census images; the Victorian probate references. What the clock stopped. Transcripts at scale rather than one at a time — an index row gives a name and a year, a transcript gives parents, ship, street and occupation. The images behind them, which is where a signature or a birthplace actually is. The Irish, Scottish and English parish sets never opened. And the UK Electoral Registers, which hold living people and can be counted here but never published with a place or a year. How to drive it is written down: it is a client-rendered SPA, the results URL wants «_page» and not «page», and its own pagination anchors must be clicked or the harvest loses its state. The session is in the in-app browser, on findmypast.com.au this time rather than the .co.uk domain. --- 21 September — the three national sets are open. Read on the search register: Ireland is a different surname entirely (11 rows, all *de France*, *Defrance*, *de Frances* — the Huguenot name), Scotland is one probate row and not ours, and England and Wales on the exact spelling gives five, of which one is Emerico's known 1876 Cardiff marriage, three are living people named here without detail, and one is new: Laura Defranceschi, born about 1848, died Q4 1931 at Croydon aged 83, GRO 2A/520 — the only person of this surname in the whole England and Wales death index. What remains on this item is the UK Electoral Registers, which hold living people and can be counted but never published with a place or a year.

Done the same day. The map has a fourth switch: the records, 156 of them on 31 places, in amber. It is a different kind of claim from the other three and it is drawn that way. The shelf, our people and the ground all say *where this family is*. A census line or a landing says *somebody of the name was at this place on one day* — so the panel says «named in a record here», never «who the archive puts here», and a place with both says both. 21 records name only a state or a country and get no dot at all, which is the same rule that keeps «Americas» off the map. The work was mostly in the gazetteer, which had been throwing away the region a place string names: San Lorenzo, Puerto Rico had landed in California. What it cost.

Two of the fourteen were never disagreements. An *Antonius* buried at Pula as an infant in 1893 had been matched to the Antonius of Gologorica who died in 1893 aged seventy-nine, because they share a year. Twenty of this archive's burial rows read b = d, a child born and buried in the same year. The anchor test refuses that pairing now and the correction is logged. The twelve that survive are three different problems. Seven are age arithmetic — death agreed, birth out by one: Josephus, Cattarina, Jacobus, Valentinus, Davide, and Albino and Maria out by two and three. A record that gives an age rather than a date produces a birth year that depends on whether the birthday had passed. Not worth a morning each; worth a sentence on each page. Two are too big for arithmetic: *Mario De Franceski* 1919 against 1924, and *Girolamo of Omiš* 1632 against 1622. Three dispute the death year, and that is the serious kind: *Clementina Maria* of Gologorica, 1840 here against 1870 — thirty years; *Josephus Lambertus*, same parish, twenty-one; *Lina* of Torrington, two. The Gologorica registers settle two of the three in an afternoon, and this archive has already read them once. Done, 20 September 2026 — each disagreement now says so on the person's own page. Fourteen rows annotated, one per disagreement, matched on **name *and* source** rather than on name alone. *That distinction cost a first attempt.* Matching on name put the note on 56 rows, because this roster is record-level and *Maria Defranceschi* alone is twenty-four rows — the annotation would have accused twenty-three innocent namesakes of a disagreement that belongs to one of them. Stripped and redone. The three kinds are written differently, because they are not the same problem. The seven off-by-one-to-three births say plainly that *an age produces this* and that the archive keeps its own figure. The two too-big-for-arithmetic say one side has the wrong man. The three disputed death years say this needs the burial register, not a judgement. And the mirrored *Petrus Defranceschi* pair says what it is: one man on the roster twice, 1768 and 1765, same death year 1829, at Gologorica and at Rovinj, standing until somebody resolves them.

Maria Defranceschi of Gologorica is merged. Two rows, born 1786 and 1789, dying the same year at the same parish under two MyHeritage identifiers. Both identifiers are kept on the surviving row; the birth year is not settled and the Gologorica baptisms will decide it. Correction 94. Petrus Defranceschi is not merged, and that is the finding. His two rows disagree on the parish: a Petrus of Rovinj resting on a burial register with an ark, and a Petrus of Gologorica resting on the 2018 family file. Three years and a hundred kilometres apart is either two men or one badly recorded, and a burial entry outranks a tree entry. Both rows now carry a note pointing at the other. The Gologorica register decides it, not a merge.

The list is made and the door is half open. Of the 405 arks David's own citations name, 328 appear nowhere in this repository: 234 indexed records and 94 film images. The session is signed out where it matters. Tested on 16 September: the waypoint API still answers 200 — which is why the Međimurje and Pola harvest ran this morning — but every route to a record returns 401 Unauthorized: the persona endpoint, the ark URL itself, and the search service in its place. A waypoint is public; a record is not. This archive does not sign in on David's behalf, so the row is his: sign in to FamilySearch in the in-app browser, and a machine can read all 234 indexed records in one pass at the spacing that has never drawn a throttle. The 94 image arks are a different job again — an image is a page, and a page is read by eye. Those are the ones worth doing first whatever happens: each is a register page David has already looked at. --- 22 September 2026 — David signed in, and the door is open. Tested the same minute: `https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:X9DP-9D17` now renders the whole record — name, sex, birth date, event type, event date, event place, both parents and the citation. *«Antonio De Franceschi · Birth Aug 1704 · Baptism Nov 1704 · Croazia, Austria · Father Mattio De Franceschi · Mother Zuanna.»* One caveat that changes the method. The JSON routes are still shut — `/platform/records/personas/<ark>` and the ark with `?_format=json` both return 401, because they want an OAuth bearer token and a cookie is not one. The rendered page is the way in, one navigation at a time, which is slower but entirely automatic. 234 indexed records is a long afternoon, not a blocked row. *This row is now `next` rather than `blocked`, and it is the largest piece of work on this list that needs nobody.* --- 22 September, an hour later — the number was wrong, and it is ten. Rebuilding the list from the two files in this repository that hold David's own citations — `myheritage-surname-2026-09.tsv` and `to-the-tree.ged`, 351 arks between them — and diffing against every ark the site already carries leaves ten, not 328. *The week's sweeps absorbed the rest.* Two traps in the counting, both of which inflate it. The repository stores some arks bare, without the `1:1:` prefix, in an `arks` array — a regex that looks for the prefix reports them missing when they are already here. And `data/fs-catalogue.json` holds 5,451 arks which are first images of catalogue volumes, not citations at all; counting those turns ten into thousands. What the ten gave. Three are indexed records: Vittoria Defranceschi, born 29 April 1894 at Telve, daughter of Antonio and Rosa Mattivi; Estefania Defranceschi, married at Dallas on 24 July 2004 to Lance C Thomas; and one that is restricted to certain accounts and cannot be opened. A fourth, Marina De Franceschi 1710, turned out to be here already under a reading — and the index adds her mother, Vittoria, whom the page did not name. Seven are film images and are a read rather than a fetch. *The original figure was honestly arrived at and is honestly withdrawn. A count of what is missing has to be made against every way the thing is stored, not one of them.* --- 22 September — done, and it was the seven images that paid. Three households in three towns, none of the four films referenced anywhere else in this archive: a tailor's house at Kaštelir with three of the name in it and a grandfather named *Giulio*; a widow of eighty-five at Bakar, born about 1734, with an unnamed husband behind her; and a carpenter's family at Parenzo whose son had the Marchese de Polesini for a godfather. The read. *The row is closed. What remains of the arks is one record the owner has restricted and the right-hand page of one image, and both are named rather than glossed.*

The file is written: `data/to-the-tree.ged`, 494 people. It is not an edit to David's tree and it is not going to be one — a GEDCOM is a file he can read before importing and undo after. Why 494 and not 780. The 780 counts roster rows the tree has under no name-and-date match. This file is stricter: it leaves out anybody whose given names already appear in the tree at all, even with different dates, because pushing those in makes duplicates rather than fixing anything. 691 were skipped on that test. Where they came from: 168 out of the 2018 family file, 70 from households read off the page, 54 from name indexes, 46 from headstones, 42 from volumes read end to end, 41 from indexed records, 25 from burial registers, 14 from the Gologorica books. Each carries a NOTE saying which, 223 carry a FamilySearch ark, and every one links back to its page here. No living person is in it. Twenty were dropped for being flagged living and one more for being born after 1930 with no death recorded — a tree entry is a date by construction, so the rule here is stricter than the name-and-town rule the rest of the site keeps. --- 22 September 2026 — it cannot be regenerated, and the reason is exactly right. `export-to-tree.py` needs the parsed live tree to know who to leave out — its whole discipline is *«leave out anybody whose given names already appear in the tree at all»*, and it cannot apply that against a tree it cannot see. Run today it stops with *«Pass the parsed gedcom.json so the tree side can be matched»*. The tree export is not on disk and was never meant to be. `read-gedcom.py` says so in its own header: *«The GEDCOM itself is NOT committed. It carries dates of birth for living people.»* The copy David exported on 16 September has gone from the downloads folder, and that is the correct state for a file full of living people's birth dates — it is not a bug to fix. So the file offered back to the tree is frozen at 17 September, 494 people, while the roster has grown to 1,419 rows — and the growth is exactly the kind this file exists to hand over: *a tailor's household at Kaštelir, a widow at Bakar born about 1734, a carpenter's family at Parenzo, four households inside the Svetvinčenat years no index covers.* The remedy, in order, and it starts with David: export the tree again → `python3 scripts/read-gedcom.py <file.ged> --out <dir>` → `python3 scripts/export-to-tree.py <dir>/gedcom.json`. *Ten minutes of machine time behind one export. Moved from «next» to «blocked», because it was listed as work this archive could do alone and it is not.*

It existed all along. Eight reports came off this account on 15 September and only five were opened; Ivan's was one of the three still unread in the inbox. Found and read on 16 September. 94 matches in thirteen clusters, and the first holds fifty people — inside it, David's entire cluster of twelve plus Račić from his cluster of four. From the father those are one cluster, not three. Every cluster David has is now decided by arithmetic. Clusters 2, 5 and 6 have ten, three and two members in his father's report and none in his mother's; clusters 1, 3, 4, 7 and 8 are the other way round. No cluster has members in both. Cluster 9 is in neither and is still called unplaced. The table. This morning the Croatian three were an inference from a pool of surnames. They are proved.

All ten opened on 16 September. They do not name a common couple, and the reason is that eight of the ten are shallow — three of them show three, seven and twelve people. The two deep ones, at 3,597 people and 1,521, do not touch each other on a single named person. What they share is a surname pool, and one name carries further than the rest: Vukelić stands in three independent trees. Prpić stands in two. Behind them Blažević, Pavelić, Krmpotić, Tomljanović, Biondić, Lopac, Katalinić, Rončević, Šojat, Butković, Šolić, Delale — every one a Senj-hinterland Bunjevac name. So the next name to chase is Vukelić, not Blažević. Blažević is the one this family carries and therefore the one the eye goes to; Vukelić is the one that recurs across the trees with nothing else in common. Written up.

The sweep of 16 September read ten transcripts out of 424 publishable records, and every one of the ten paid: a Cosulich bride at Cardiff, a GRO volume and page, three Italian sets closed as Neapolitan. An index row gives a name and a year. A transcript gives parents, a parish, a ship, a street — and for the Italian sets, a note in Italian naming the frazione and the grandfather. The transcript pages are fully client-rendered with no server-side payload, so there is no shortcut: they come one navigation at a time, about five seconds each. Start with the 277 United States passenger records, whose transcripts name the town of last residence — which is the question this archive actually has: *which of these six hundred are ours?* --- 21 September — counted, and the order of work is inverted. All sixteen pages harvested: 307 records, and they are 270 passenger and crew lists, 13 naturalisation petitions, 11 Italians to America, 6 Canadian border crossings, 2 Illinois naturalisation index, 2 passport applications, 2 British & Irish Roots, 1 UK outbound. The count is on the search register. The naturalisation petitions carry «Birth place as transcribed» in the transcript itself. No image, no order, one navigation — and that field *is* the question this item exists to answer. Thirteen records answer it outright; two hundred and seventy need a plate each. So the passenger lists are not the place to start. All thirteen were read, and all three households were already here — Joseph at *«Gallignana, Austria»* (the first of the Eleven to go), Peter at *«Basel, Switzerland»*, and Bruno, Gerda and Richard at Brooklyn under the alias *«de Franceschi or Seedorf»*. That is a real result: the naturalisation route is exhausted and it added nobody. What is left is the 270 passenger records, one plate at a time, and they should be attacked by *arrival year* rather than alphabetically — the Istrian and Kvarner departures cluster in 1900–1914 and again in 1949–1956. Two traps, paid for. A full page load in this SPA wipes `window`, so a harvest must be dumped out of the browser before navigating anywhere — 307 rows were collected and then lost to a single transcript click. And the Apollo cache (`window.__APOLLO_CLIENT__.cache.extract()`) holds index fields only: `Record:` keys carry what the results table shows and `FulfillableItem:` carries nothing but a price, so there is no bulk shortcut to transcripts. The subscription does cover them — `remainingLegacyCredits` is null and `isPurchased` is true — so nothing is being spent. --- Struck, and the reason is that it was already done by a better source. The transcripts do carry *Residence* with no image needed — that part of the plan was right. But the Ellis Island sweep already read 1,400 arrivals and 429 recorded residences, and found exactly two Istrian in the whole database. Findmypast's 270 are a subset of the same arrivals. And there is no query that shortens the job: `keywordsplace` matches ports, not residence — Domenico's transcript says *«Residence Ponte Alpi»* and searching *«ponte alpi»* returns zero, so *«Fiume: 0»* and *«Istria: 0»* are worthless as negatives. What survives is narrower and worth doing: the 1949–1956 arrivals, which the Ellis Island database does not reach, and where the Istrian *esodo* sits. That is a new item, not this one.

One hit in the whole of them. Of the 44 record sets the surname touches, the only British parish register holding anybody of the name is Wales Roman Catholic Marriages, with the single 1876 entry that started all of this. No Irish, Scottish or English parish register has one. For a Catholic family of the Adriatic that is what one would expect. It is written down so that nobody opens them again. The register.

Nobody. The sweep paged out every result for four spellings — 644 records, 44 record sets — and neither collection is among them. That is a finding. The *South Wales Echo* called them «an old Cardiff family» in 1896 and a De Franceschi married a Cosulich there in 1876. By 1921 there is nobody of the name left in England or Wales. The register.

Done, and it ends the question. Two of the San Lorenzo women were read in full from the 1920 census: *Cármen Colón de Franceschi*, 23, and *Aurora Cruz de Franceschi*, 25. Both born in Puerto Rico to parents born in Puerto Rico, both entered as *esposa*, both recorded by the enumerator as Black. An Afro-Puerto Rican family two generations on the island by 1920, married into a surname that reached the Caribbean with the nineteenth-century Corsican settlement. Not immigrants, and not ours. Written up.

The search is right and the door is shut. Since 16 September this family has a Cosulich in it — Emerico married Marietta Cosulich at Cardiff on 26 July 1876 — and the Cosulich were shipowners of Lussinpiccolo and Trieste. A Cosulich ship at Cardiff in the 1870s, printed beside a De Franceschi master, is the join this archive is missing, and the shipping columns are where it would be printed. Both routes are behind a bot check. The British Newspaper Archive answers a security challenge before it will show a result; Findmypast's own newspaper search carries a reCAPTCHA field on the form. This archive does not work round bot checks, so the search waits for a person. What to search, when you have five minutes: *Cosulich* on its own, then *Cosulich* with Cardiff, then *Cosulich* with Aquilone. The 153 articles already read under this family's own name are on the search register; the earliest sixty of them are shipping intelligence, which is exactly the column a Cosulich would appear in. --- 28 September 2026 — a third route, open and free, and it half-answers the question. Both routes on this item are behind bot checks. A third is not. *The [Portal Stare hrvatske novine](http://dnc.nsk.hr/Newspapers/Search.aspx) carries the Austro-Hungarian shipping columns of «Primorac», answers on `http://`, and has no challenge of any kind.* This archive did not work round anything; it used a different source. What it gives, and what it does not. · `Cosulich` → 81 hits — *but they cluster 1900–1925: «Naša sloga» 1901, «Jutarnji list» 1912 and 1914, «Sušački novi list» 1925, «Hrvat» 1904.* Not the 1870s shipping intelligence this item wants. · `Cosulich Aquilone` → 0. *No page on the portal carries both names.* · `Aquilone` → 32, of which 24 are now read — *twenty naming Defranceschi as master, four more from 1874–75 where the column prints no master at all.* ⚠ So the join is not made here. *The question — a Cosulich ship at Cardiff printed beside a De Franceschi master — is not answered by the Croatian press, and the British half still needs a person.* But the item can stop saying the search is impossible: one of its three routes is open, and it has been run. *Eight «Aquilone» hits remain unread on page 2 and beyond.*

Done. *Antonio De Franceski*, born 1875 in Italy, arrived 1902, in the 19th Ward of Memphis by 1910 with *Bertha* born in Germany and nine children born 1904–1917 — Pietro, Aurora, Alba, Albert, Flora, Estelle, Serena, Juliet, Romeo and a second Anthony. Three censuses, twenty-one records, and the 1910 sheet spells them «de Franceski». Born in Italy in 1875 and leaving in 1902 is the Carnian window. Istria in 1875 was Austria and an American enumerator would have written Austria. It is not proof and the census says no more than «Italy» — his naturalisation petition would name the town. The reading.

Done, and the residue is published rather than hidden. GeoNames files a village too small for its own settlement record under its church or its railway stop, and this builder was reading only populated places. Reading churches, monasteries, hospitals, stations and localities — and nothing else — put four more on the ground: Mađarevo is a railway stop, Mandalina a halt, Ludina a station, Komarevo a locality. A stream or a hill of the same name is not the village and is deliberately left out. The Glogovnica in the dumps is a river; taking it would have been a wrong dot rather than a missing one. Forty-one places carrying 130 volumes still cannot be drawn, and the map page now names them instead of letting them be invisible. Three are not settlements at all — *Bolnica Dubrovnik*, *Nahodište Dubrovnik* and *Nahodište Split* are a hospital and two foundling houses, and should in the end hang on their towns. The rest need a Croatian source and a person, not another pass of the same script.

Done. `scripts/place-audit.py` applies the two tests the builders already had — a place catalogued only by a provider that works one region cannot be outside it, and a place whose own name carries a country cannot be in another one. It found six. *Senja, Sv. Juraj* — the Senj deanery's coastal parish, eight kilometres from the town Hedviga Blažević was born in — was outside Belgrade. *Sv. Jakov-Šiljevica*, the old name of Jadranovo four kilometres from Crikvenica, was in Šumadija, and so was *Klasnić* of the Banovina. *Krug* was in Lower Austria. *Grad* and *Tišina*, both Prekmurje parishes, were in Dalmatia. Three faults underneath them: the region box covered only the two Udine providers and now covers all seven; «Sv.» was stripped and never expanded, so GeoNames' *Sveti Jakov Šiljevica* and the catalogue's *Sv. Jakov-Šiljevica* never met; and this builder had never read `data/gazetteer.json`, where a hand-checked coordinate lives with its reason beside it — so a hand fix could not reach the research map at all. The audit reports zero. It changes nothing itself and should be run whenever a place is added. Correction 91.

Done. The sweep page now carries every publishable record: 177 standing on a place and 247 whose place is a country or nothing, in two folded lists. A reader can look for their own grandmother instead of being told how many there are. The 220 withheld are still withheld — electoral registers, Social Security index, obituary notices, divorce indexes. Two names in the unplaced list are worth somebody's eye. Bosiljka and Josip Defranceski, born 1918 and 1915, crossing in 1954 — Croatian given names under this family's own fused spelling, and a post-war date. And a Marta Defranceschi, 1922, which is the given name the Pićan errand has been trying to settle for a fortnight.

Done, and it found none. `scripts/living-audit.py` reads the built HTML rather than the sources, because the built HTML is the only thing a reader ever sees: 37 people the archive holds as living, against 1,280 pages, looking for a four-digit year standing in the same run of text as a name. Getting to none took three narrowings, and each is a lesson. The menu lists every page title on every page and one of those titles is a person's name, so the audit reads only what follows the first heading. No tag may stand between the name and the year — without that a households row hands the next person's birth year to the one before. And no sentence may end between them, because «David Defranceschi. The 1584 plaque…» is prose about a plaque. What is left is the search index, where the page title *«1948»* sits beside a name in a lowercased string. On the method page: a rule enforced at the door should be checked at the window.

The row promised thirteen birthplaces. The transcripts do not carry one. Four were read on 16 September — *Giovanni* of Chicago (naturalised 1937), *Giovanni* of Connecticut (passport 1922), *Louis* (passport 1919) and *Tobias de Franceski* (passport 1922). Every one of them gives «Birth place: Italy» and nothing finer. Tobias is the exception and only because he was born in the District of Columbia. The town is on the image, not in the index. Findmypast holds the images and links them from each transcript, and the transcripts carry the NARA reference that would fetch the same page from Washington — *M1490 roll 1807*, *roll 1008*, *roll 1842*, *M1285 roll 41*. So the work is a different job from the one written down: eighteen images to read by eye, not eighteen transcripts to harvest. Two are already an errand because a petition is worth ordering whether or not the image reads. *Corrected the same day it was written, which is the right speed for a wrong plan.* --- 21 September 2026 — the images are open, and two towns are out. The viewer was never the obstacle. A Findmypast transcript id for these sets *is* a FamilySearch film and frame — `US_PASSPORT_APPLICATIONS/007572652/00658/…` — so the plate can be fetched directly and read on a canvas, with no viewer, no filmstrip and no paging. The route is written down. Louis De Franceschi was born at Sequals, Province of Udine, on 3 November 1873; father Pietro, dead by 1919; Havre to Washington in February 1907; naturalised 4 October 1915; cement decorator, which is the Sequals trade. Giovanni DeFranceschi was born at Castronovo on 10 December 1876; father Francesco, dead by 1922; Havre to Torrington, Connecticut in April 1903; naturalised at Winsted in 1911. And the index was never wrong. The form asks the father's birthplace in one blank labelled *«(Country.)»*, so *«Italy»* is the whole of that field. The town lives on the applicant's own line, and only on the naturalized-citizen form — which is why Tobias's native-citizen application of 1922 has no town to give, and his father's has Sequals. Still to read: the remaining images, and the Chicago naturalisation of 1937, which is a different series with a different image path. --- 27 September — the naturalisation series read, and «they all say Italy» was true of four records, not of the set. *The 16 September reading took four passport applications and found «Birth place: Italy» in every one, correctly, because that form asks the father's birthplace in a blank labelled «(Country.)». The naturalisation petitions are a different form and they carry the town. Ten were read today off the transcript, without an image.* The towns that came out: · Joseph Defranceschi — «Gallignana, Austria», born 12 March 1892. *That is Gračišće, the parish this family comes out of. Declaration 22660 (Brooklyn, 1912) spells it «Gaglinana»; petition 13838, certificate 1104860 (1915) spells it «Gallignana» — the same clerk's office, three years apart, and the second is right.* · Gerda De Franceschi — «Hollen, Germany», born 15 January 1913. *This archive held «1913» off a gravestone and no birthplace at all.* · Peter De Franceschi — «Basel, Switzerland», born 12 January 1902. *A country this archive has never recorded for anyone of the name.* · Giovanni of Chicago, 1937 — «Italy», and nothing finer. *Checked, and the earlier reading stands: NARA M1285 roll 41 is a Soundex index card, not a petition, so there is no town on it to find.* And one document gives a whole household. *Declaration of intention 284221, certificate 2-665402, Brooklyn 1939, names Bruno (b. 12 Aug 1907), his wife Gerda (b. 15 Jan 1913) and their son Richard (b. 2 Dec 1932) on one paper.* That is a source naming a couple together, so it is the first spouse link written from a record rather than from the direct-line chart. *Gerda's oath of allegiance follows in 1944, certificate 5742645.* *Richard is added as a new person and deliberately not joined to the `Richard Defranceschi` already on the roster from David's tree, who carries no dates: nothing links them but a forename.*

She appears once in the whole of Findmypast and it is the consular marriage itself: GRO MCON, volume 788, line 70. The index does not name the groom, and the finder offers Helen Whittall, Frederick P Wilkinson, Reginald E Turrell from the same page. Unresolved, and left so. Only a consular certificate would name her father, which is the one thing that could join her to anybody here. Written up.

Done. *Giovanni «John» De Franceschi*, born 1895 in Italy: the 1930 Chicago census with *Freedia* and the children *Thersa* and *Ateo*; naturalised at Chicago in 1937 (NARA M1285, roll 41); buried 12 April 1951 at St Joseph's Cemetery, River Grove. Frieda died in 1988 and *Attilio F Defranceschi*, 1925–2010, is almost certainly Ateo. Every record says «Italy» and stops. The petition behind the Soundex index names the comune and is now an errand.

Opened on 16 September. 96 matches in six clusters. It shares 31 matches with David's mother and 6 with David — five to one, which is what a relative on her side looks like, because a child inherits about half of what a parent has. It splits her fourteen clusters nine to five. Nine contain somebody the third kit also matches; five contain nobody. 81 of her 103 matches are in a shared cluster, 22 are not. The nine are her mother's family; the five are her father's — and the father's side belongs to another session, so this archive stops there. The by-product is what matters here. Against David's own nine clusters the third kit touches 1, 4 and 8 — and not 2, 5 or 6, which are the Croatian three. A maternal relative, tested independently, lands in three of his clusters and in none of the Croatian ones. That is arithmetic on a third person's DNA rather than an inference from a surname. Whose kit it is is not published, for the same reason no match's name is.

Three documents this archive cannot read from a desk. Two were found on 16 September and answer the same question — where in Italy — and the third, found on 17 September, answers a different one: who was in the house. The Cardiff marriage certificate — GRO, Cardiff district, Q3 1876, volume 11A, page 428. The parish register gave the two fathers and nothing else; the certificate gives both ages, both residences, both occupations and the witnesses. If Emerico's occupation is *master mariner*, the at-sea page stops being a collection of sightings. £12.50, ordered online. Giovanni's Chicago naturalisation petition — NARA M1285, roll 41. Every American record for that household says «Italy» and stops: the 1930 census, the burial at River Grove in 1951, the Soundex index itself. The petition names the comune. Antonio of Memphis, born 1875 and arrived 1902, has one too and it is worth asking for in the same letter. Both are on the errands page in full. The Arolsen CM/1 file — 3.2.1.1, ref 32110000 058.158, filed under *Petar Defranceski, born 15 June 1913 at Crikvenica*, and titled in Arolsen's own words *«and of further persons»*. A CM/1 file says where a displaced person was during the war, who was with them, and where they asked to go. Arolsen publishes online without an account and answers enquiries free. Where it came from.

David's tree gives Nelida Albina de Franceschi, born 9 September 1931 at Mercedes, as Rotilio's daughter, and cites *Argentina, Buenos Aires, registros parroquiales, 1635–1981*, ark 6ZP4-29WC. The citation reads *«Entry for Nélida Albina and Federico Nebbia, 30 de noviembre de 1931»* — and in every other citation from these Argentine collections the second name is the father. On the face of it the record is a Nebbia baptism. It is the only Argentine record ever attached to Rotilio's story, so it decides whether Argentina stays dotted. Signed out, FamilySearch answers 401 on the ark — tested 17 September. It needs one click in David's own session. --- 22 September 2026 — signed in, and the answer is that the account cannot see it. The ark no longer returns 401; it renders, and what it renders is: > «We're unable to show this record. This record can only be displayed on certain accounts. FamilySearch must honor the agreements we have with our partners, record owners, and internal policies.» So this was never a sign-in problem. The Argentine parish collection is restricted by its owner, and David's own account is not one of the accounts that may see it. *A second sign-in will not fix it and should not be attempted.* The question stands exactly where it was: the citation names Nélida Albina and Federico Nebbia, and in every other citation from these collections the second name is the father — so on its face the record is a Nebbia baptism, and the only Argentine record ever attached to Rotilio may not be his at all. What would answer it now: the image rather than the index entry, or the parish register at Mercedes (Buenos Aires) direct. *Keep Argentina dotted, not solid.*

The register already read gives *«Rutilius 3-11-1902, married 16-5-1928»* and this archive took the wife's name from the 2012 reunion album — which turned out to be his sister's husband's surname. David's tree still carries an *«Albine Chinkopan, born Italy, died Buenos Aires»* against that same date. The register itself names the bride. One entry, one date, one parish, and it settles a question two pages are currently hedging. Croatian registers of 1928 fall inside the hundred-year closure, so this may be an errand rather than a click. --- 21 September 2026 — ANSWERED, and the answer reverses this archive's own reading. FamilySearch full-text, query *Rotilio Defranceschi*, reached Trieste, Marriage Proclamation Records 1928, Parte II Serie A n. 132: *«Defranceschi Rotilo … figlio di fu Antonio … e di Valhart Maria»* marrying *«Cincopan Albina … figlia di Giuseppe … e di Trompich Maria»*. He did marry an Albina Cincopan. The album was right; the correction published here was wrong. Three people added, a trade recorded, and Trieste added as a place the bride had lived. See /corrections/.

The fourteen children were read off the Liber Baptizatorum of St Vitus on 6 September and no ark and no image number was kept for any of them. Ten are also in the FamilySearch index and can be re-joined by their household arks; four — Ignatius Francus Mattheus 1745, Vitus Joannes Baptista 1751, Aloysius Rochus 1754, Rosalia Francisca 1755 — are in no index at all, so their pages rest on a reading nobody can check. This archive's own rule is that a read is worth what its citation is worth. 20 Sept 2026 — eleven of fifteen recovered, and the list turned out to be wrong in two places. Matching the index on the parents rather than the children (`q.fatherSurname` across *Defranceschi* / *De Franceschi* / *Franceschi*, keeping only rows with a *Valentin-* in them) returns eleven rows, six of them this household's: Matheus Franciscus 1739, Aloysius Joannes Petrus 1752, and the burials of Mattio 1742, Antonio 1753 and Aloysia 1757 — plus Jacobus Vincentius, baptised 21 July 1757, who was not in the list at all. His entry was read on the page before it was believed, and with him Valentino's sons come out at ten, which is the number the family has always given. Reading the Aloysia frame settled a second thing: the entry is a burial and gives her age as «d'anni 4», so she was born about 1753, not 1757 — which is just as well, because no mother bears a live child eight weeks after 20 July. What is left. Four children are in no index — *Ignatius Francus Mattheus 1745, Vitus Joannes Baptista 1751, Aloysius Rochus 1754, Rosalia Francisca 1755* — and four more come back on no spelling tried: *Josepha Catharina 1737, Nicolaus Francus 1741, Nicolo 1742, Francisca Joanna Theresia 1742, Maria 1757*. All of them need the St Vitus film read at their dates. The ark prefixes are the map for that: `…-W…` frames are the baptism book, `…-QD…` frames the burials. Later the same day, the remaining gap closed to four. Filtering the surname search on a date range (1735–1760) instead of on the father's name returns twenty-two rows, and picks up five more of the household: Josepha Catharina 1737, Nicolaus Francus 1741, Francisca Joanna Theresia 1742, and the burials of Nicolo 1742 and Maria 1757. Eleven of the fifteen now cite an image. The four that never come back on any spelling or filter are *Ignatius Francus Mattheus 1745, Vitus Joannes Baptista 1751, Aloysius Rochus 1754, Rosalia Francisca 1755* — exactly the four this archive named as unindexed on 6 September, which is as good a check on that reading as the index can give. Those four need the St Vitus film at their dates, and that is all this item has left in it. Closed the same day — all four were read on the film. Any ark resolves to a film and frame number through `/service/records/storage/dascloud/das/v2/3:1:<ARK>`, so the eleven indexed children gave eleven dated frames to interpolate between. Ignatius Francus Mattheus is frame 126, Vitus Joannes Baptista 228, Aloysius Rochus 257, Rosalia Francisca 272 — and every one sat where the 6 September reading said it would. Three of them gave up a birth date that reading had missed: 28 July 1745, 16 August 1754, 3 October 1755. All fifteen children now cite an image, and this item has nothing left in it.

Every sweep this archive has run searched the SURNAME. Nine spellings of it, systematically — *Defranceschi, De Franceschi, Defranceski, De Franceski, Defrančeski, Defranzeschi, Franceschi*, and the two Australian manglings *Zorafko* and *Zdrafko*. That is why the Australian and Arolsen files were found. The given name has never been varied once. Out of 312 rows in the research log, eight mention searching by a forename and all eight are a hunt for one named person, not a sweep. That is a hole with a shape. Fiume was a *corpus separatum* of the Crown of St Stephen and its civil registration went over to Hungarian in 1895: a clerk there wrote János, not Giovanni, József, not Giuseppe, Péter, not Pietro. Hungaricana is free and this archive already uses it. The same for the Austrian sets and Johann, Josef, Franz, Andreas. Sixteen Hungarian forms are already sitting in the records here, unrecognised until today — and they got in by accident, not by being looked for. The seven columns are a search plan that has never been run. --- Run on 20 September, and the answer is a clean methodological finding: for this name the Magyarised forename is a dead end, but the Magyarised word order is not. Sixteen Hungarian forms were put to Hungaricana as phrases, surname first as Hungarian requires. Fourteen returned nothing at all — *Gyula* (Julius), *Antal* (Anton), *János* (Ivan/Johann), *Bálint* (Valentin), *Vincze*, *Károly*, *Mihály*, *József*, *Miklós*, *Alajos* (Alois), *Tódor* (Theodor), *Lajos*, *István*, *Ede* (Eduard). Two returned, and the pair explains the other fourteen. *«Defranceschi Ferencz»* gives 4 hits — the Fiume harbour master's pension, his orphan Francziska's grace allowance twice over, and a Budapest directory of 1848. *«Defranceschi Péter»* gives 1. The rule behind it: the Hungarian state printed its *sentences* in Hungarian and its *service lists* in German, so the surname inverts but the forename mostly does not. Ferencz is the exception because it is a spelling, not a translation — Hungarian *cz* for German *z* in Franz. The control matters more than the zeros. Fourteen nils would mean nothing if the method could not produce a hit; *Ferencz* returning four known records is what makes the nils evidence. The sweep was run because the search log showed 312 rows in which the surname had been varied nine ways and the forename never once. And it was not empty. *Péter* turned up a fourteenth man for the imperial roll — *«beim Husz. Reg. Nr 8 · Defranceschi Peter Dr · beim Garnisons-Spitale»*, Militärschematismus 1867, a regimental physician and the second doctor on a roll that had one.

Two things are now settled and the third is the whole job. Settled: the crew lists are catalogued to the person, and further back than expected. *«Ship: Belgravian; Official number: 98611. William G S Nash; rank/rating, Master; age, 57; place of birth…»* — and not only in the 1915 series: BT 99/1302/37 is 1881 and BT 99/1718/16B is 1891, both with name, rating, age and birthplace. This archive's first explanation of the blank — that shipping is catalogued by vessel and year rather than by master — was simply wrong, and is retracted. Settled: the name is not in it. *Franceschi rank rating* 0, *Defranceschi seaman* 0, against 827 for *«place of birth, Italy» master*. The index is dense, so the absence means something. Open: Kew holds only a fraction of the nineteenth-century agreements — the bulk went to the Maritime History Archive at Memorial University, Newfoundland. **Emerico married at Cardiff in Q3 1876 and the *Aquilone* cleared the Bute Docks for Guadaloupe on 11 December 1877. Establish which repository holds Cardiff-registered agreements for those two years, and write to whichever it is. --- Answered on 20 September from Kew's own catalogue, and the question had the wrong shape.** It is not *«Kew or Newfoundland»*. It is three repositories and one number. · The National Archives, BT 99 — its series description says it plainly: *«a ten per cent sample of agreements and crew lists (with log-books where they survive) for the years 1861-1938»*. · Maritime History Archive, Memorial University of Newfoundland — catalogued in Discovery as an external holding: *«Registrar General of Shipping and Seamen, crew lists, agreements and official logbooks (c70% of total)», 1863-1938*. · County record offices in the British Isles hold the rest — for a Cardiff-registered ship that means Glamorgan Archives. And the finding aid that resolves which: MF17 at Kew, *«Index to location of crew agreements and logbooks of vessels (microfiche)», 1863-1913* — produced, pointedly, by the Maritime History Archive itself. Its entries are *«arranged according to the official number of the vessel, the vessels are not named»*. So the chain is fixed and its first link is missing. Ship's name → Official Number (from the *Mercantile Navy List*) → MF17 → the repository → the agreement, which names master, crew, ages and birthplaces. Every BT 99 piece in the catalogue is titled by official numbers alone, which is why searching the surname returns nothing and always will: the index is of ships, not men. Which makes the Cardiff marriage certificate the hinge of the whole maritime thread. GRO Cardiff, Q3 1876, vol. 11A p. 428. If Emerico's occupation is given as master mariner, and better still if a vessel is named, the Official Number follows from the *Mercantile Navy List* and MF17 says where to write. Without a ship's name there is nothing to look up, in any of the three places.

«An old Cardiff family» is a phrase a newspaper used in 1896 and this archive has never tested against a census. Findmypast's 1921 Census and 1939 Register hold nobody of the name, which dates the disappearance but not the family. The censuses between Emerico's marriage in 1876 and 1911 have not been searched at all — and the subscription that would do it is already paid for. Kew is not the place for this; the GRO and the census are. --- 21 September 2026 — searched, and the answer is the other surname. No person of this name, in any spelling, is enumerated anywhere in Glamorgan in any census from 1841 to 1921. *Defranceschi* and *De Franceschi* return nothing across Great Britain for births 1815–1895; the wildcard *Defrance\ returns no census record at all** in Glamorgan; and the one historic Cardiff hit on *Franceschi\ is a Franceschini, a different name. The Cosulich are there the whole time — Swansea 1871, St John Cardiff 1881 and 1891, Barry 1921, Rhyl 1939. «An old Cardiff family» is the bride's family, not the groom's. The reading is on the search register and the household is set out under Cosulich. What is left is the GRO, and it is an order, not a search**: the 1876 marriage certificate (Cardiff Q3 1876, 11A/428) for Emerico's occupation, and the Cardiff birth index of the late 1870s for the daughter who played at the 1896 Exhibition.

Begun 17 September 2026, and the survey of the shelf came first because it changed the target. Across the whole Vinodol, one marriage register on film reaches the years wanted. Ledenice's *Vjenčani* stops at 1882; Novi Vinodolski's at 1859; Bribir's at 1858; Grižane has no marriage film at all. Only Crikvenica, Vjenčani 1859–1908, covers 1885–1890 and 1908. If the marriage of Josip Defranceschi × Anna Kalanj is on free film anywhere, it is in that one volume — and if it is not in it, the answer is a letter to the parish office at Ledenice or Novi, not another search. The film is open and mapped. 272 images, DGS 2084742; every image's ark captured from the waypoint API and held in the session scratchpad; full-resolution pages (about 6000 × 4150) reachable directly, and legible. Year anchors read off the pages themselves: image 61 = 1862 · image 161 = «Godina 1890» · image 200 = 1897, so 1885–1890 falls at about images 138–165 and 1908 at the end of the book. The honest cost of «end to end». The archive's own standard is that a volume is not marked read until every page has been looked at. A page is a two-page spread of about four marriages, and the browser returns 800 pixels at a time, so a spread needs three or four looks. 272 images is therefore something like nine hundred reads — an afternoon, not a minute, and it is the price of being able to put a green mark on that volume and mean it. --- 20 September: 17 of 272 read, and three consecutive years are now closed end to end. 1887, 1888 and 1889 are complete — images 151–160, entries 1–19, 1–19 and 1–13, with the priest's own closing line on each: *«U Crikvenici dne 31 prosinca 1889. Alexander Car, župnik.»* Not one Defranceschi in any of them, in the couple columns or the parents' and witnesses' columns. Why those three years and not others. Anton Rudolf was born at Klenovica on 20 January 1890, so his parents Josip Defranceschi and Anna Kalanj married before that; Ledenice marriages stop in 1882, which leaves Crikvenica as the only Vinodol marriage register on film covering the window. 1887–1889 is the heart of it, and they are not in it. That does not close the question — 1883–1886 and the first weeks of 1890 are still unread, and they may have married in Klenovica's or Novi's own parish rather than the bride's — but it removes the likeliest three years. One gap to go back for: 1888 entries 16 and 17 fall between images 157 and 158 and have not been seen. The year is otherwise complete. The scratchpad was wiped between sessions and had to be rebuilt — all 272 arks re-derived from the waypoint and verified against the previous session's record (image 156 must be `3QS7-899X-R4S`, and it is). `METHOD.md` now carries the rebuild recipe so the next wipe costs minutes. The reading method changed and is much better. The old auto-crop locked onto the film frame rather than the page, because this film's grey base is as bright as the paper. It is replaced by a fixed left/right split — each half of the frame drawn into 800×1100 — which doubles the effective resolution and made the hands legible. Two screenshots per image; about 255 images to go. And one question for David, which is a scope question rather than a reading one. The witness column of 1888 no. 18 carries «Frančić». The declared in-scope list at /name/#scope includes «Franceschich», which is the Italianised spelling of exactly that Croatian patronymic of *Franjo*. Either Frančić is in scope and this film has hits, or Franceschich should not be on the in-scope list. It cannot be both. *Flagged, not decided.* --- 20 September, second sitting: 1883 is complete, and a year label had to be corrected before it did any harm. The correction first. Image 132 was logged an hour earlier as *«Godina 1885»*. Read at full magnification it is unmistakably «Godine 1883» — the same flourished hand that had already turned 1888 into 1877 at low resolution. The digit was re-read, not guessed, and everything then fell into place: 1882 closes on image 131 with *«Crikvenica dne 31 prosinca 1882»*, so the next year must be 1883. 1883–1886 is images 132–150, which is four years across nineteen images — the same four or five images a year as the rest of the film. 1883 is now read end to end: images 132–136, entries 1 to 23, and no Defranceschi. The year closes with blank ruled rows after entry 23, which is how this register ends a year. The names are the same closed village as ever — Car, Kalnić, Škiljan, Kristofor, Vračić, Bernjac, Škomerža, Kulentić, Matejčić, Manestar — with two outsiders worth noting: no. 19, Josip Car, a clerk at the royal district tax office at Karlovac, and no. 21, Ivan Barac of Grižane marrying Ana Car of Crikvenica. 1881 and 1882 were read on the way past (images 124–131) and are also clean, which was not asked for but costs nothing to keep. Read so far: 31 images of 272, and 1883, 1887, 1888 and 1889 are complete years. Still to do for David's window: 1884, 1885 and 1886 — images 137 to 150. *Method note: the crop is now a magnified window on the left page rather than a whole-frame view, because the couple columns are what carry the surname. The parents' and witnesses' columns on the right page are a second pass, still owed for 1883.* --- 1883 to 1889 is now read end to end — seven consecutive years, 144 marriages, and not one Defranceschi. | year | images | marriages | |---|---|---| | 1883 | 132–136 | 23 | | 1884 | 137–141 | 25 | | 1885 | 142–148 | 31 | | 1886 | 148–150 | 14 | | 1887 | 151–154 | 19 | | 1888 | 155–158 | 19 | | 1889 | 158–160 | 13 | Each year closes in the priest's own hand — *«U Crikvenici dne 31 prosinca 1886»*, and so on — so these are whole years, not samples. 1881 and 1882 were read on the way in and are clean too. What that settles. Anton Rudolf was born at Klenovica on 20 January 1890; his parents Josip Defranceschi and Anna Kalanj must therefore have married by 1889. Ledenice marriages stop in 1882. Crikvenica was the one Vinodol marriage register on film that covered the gap, and the seven years that matter are now read and they are not in it. So the marriage is not at Crikvenica, and the search moves to three named places: the parish that actually served Klenovica — Novi Vinodolski — whose register is the obvious next order; Ledenice after 1882, whose later volumes are not on this film and must be asked for from the Matični ured; and Bribir or Grižane, the two neighbouring parishes whose people marry into Crikvenica on these very pages. *This is a redirection built on a complete reading, not on a sample.* The village these pages describe is worth recording for its own sake. Ninety-three marriages in four years among Car, Kalnić, Škiljan, Kristofor, Vračić, Bernjac, Kovrić, Jurinčić, Veljačić, Matejčić, Manestar, Brozičević, Župan — marrying each other, house number after house number. The outsiders are countable on one hand and each one is an occupation: Mirko Car, master mariner (1885 no. 24); Adalberto Radil, a baker (1885 no. 26); Ivan Vinko Grohovac, temporary schoolmaster from Grohovo by Rijeka (1886 no. 4); Eduardo Janić of Bakar (1886 no. 7); Josip Car, clerk at the royal tax office at Karlovac (1883 no. 19); and Marija-Eva Pilz of Gospić (1886 no. 10), the only German name in four years. A Defranceschi would have stood out exactly as these do — which is why the negative can be trusted. Read so far: 45 of 272 images. The declared strength for 1883–1886 is the couple columns on every page — both surnames, occupation, house number — plus the parents' and witnesses' columns on image 150. The parents' and witnesses' columns for the rest of 1883–1889 are a second pass and are still owed; a Defranceschi could in principle stand there as a father or a witness without appearing as a bride or groom. --- Second pass done. 1883–1889 is now read on BOTH pages — every column of every entry — and the name is not there. The right-hand page of this register carries Parentum Nomen (both sets of parents, with the mothers' maiden names), Testium Nomen (two witnesses with their fathers' names and trades), the celebrant, the banns and dispensations, and the Observationes. Twenty-five right pages were read to finish images 132–157; 150 and 158–160 had been done in the first pass. 144 marriages, seven years, four columns of names each, and no Defranceschi anywhere in them — not as a groom, not as a bride, not as a father, not as a mother, not as a witness. That is the strong form of the negative. A man can marry out of a parish and never appear in its register; he cannot easily be a father or a witness there either without leaving a trace. Josip Defranceschi is absent from Crikvenica in all four roles across the whole window in which his son was conceived and born. The marriage, and the family, were somewhere else. Things the right pages gave that the left ones could not. The parish had three priests, not one: Aleksander Car signs almost everything, but Vč. g. Mate Škiljan, umirovljeni župnik — a retired priest — takes services on images 148, 149, 153 and 155, and Lovro Zenac, kapelan Grižki, comes over from Grižane for 1885 no. 24. Two marriages needed military permission — *«dozvolom vojničke oblasti»*, from Rijeka (1884 no. 16 and 1886 no. 6), which means a serving soldier. And the witness column is where the village's professional class shows up: Josip Šanvić, obćinski bilježnik (parish notary), Mate Car, obćinski pazitelj and kr. lučki pazitelj (harbour watchman), a trgovac, and on 1888 no. 12 Narcisio Kamin, professor of navigation — a nautical school teacher standing witness at a Crikvenica wedding. The scope flag is now on two pages, not one. Witnesses spelled «Franić» / «Frančić» appear at 1888 no. 6 and 1888 no. 18. The declared in-scope list still contains «Franceschich», which is the Italianised form of that same Croatian patronymic of *Franjo*. **Ruled on 20 September 2026: *«frančić is adjacent, take franceschich off the list»*. So they are not hits, and the seven-year negative for 1883–1889 stands unqualified**. *Franceschich* has been moved to the adjacent forms and taken off the drift chart — correction 110. Twelve spellings are the name; six are adjacent. --- Into the second half: 1890 and most of 1891 read, both pages, on the way to 1908. 1890 is complete — images 161–163, eleven marriages, closed *«U Crikvenici 31 prosinca 1890»*. 1891 is read to entry 23 across images 163–167. No Defranceschi in either year, in any of the four name columns. The village is beginning to leak, and the register shows it. Where 1883–1886 had five outsiders in four years, 1890–91 already has a bride from Senj with the župnik of Senj himself standing witness (1890 no. 9), a groom from Vrbnik on Krk married by permission of the Vrbnik parish office (1890 no. 11), a man from Sv. Križ Začretje in the Zagorje who is a čuvar na željeznici u Rieci — a railway guard at Rijeka (1891 no. 14) — and brides and grooms out of Grižane and Sv. Jelena. The railway and the steamer are pulling strangers into a parish that married itself for centuries, and that is the context in which a Defranceschi could arrive. And the bishop came. Image 165 carries a seal and a signature across the foot of the page: *«Vidjeno na kanoničnoj vizitaciji dne 20. svibnja 1891 — Juraj Posilović, biskup»* — the Bishop of Senj-Modruš inspecting the register in person. It is the second visitation mark on this film; there is another, unsigned, in 1881. 53 of 272 images read. 1883–1891 is now continuous and complete except the last stretch of 1891. Still to do: 1892–1908 (images 168–272) and 1859–1882 (images 4–123). --- 1891 and 1892 complete; 1893 begun. 59 of 272 images. 1891 closes at 24 marriages (images 163–168) and 1892 at 23 (images 168–172), each signed off by Aleksandar Car on 31 December. 1893 is open at entry 5. No Defranceschi in any column of either year. 1883 to 1892 is now ten unbroken years. The outsiders have stopped being a trickle. In 1892 alone: a joiner from Vrbnik on Krk; Dragutin Gaus, another joiner, married by leave of the royal Hungarian ministry of defence; and — the first of its kind in this book — Marko Pavletić, an innkeeper, marrying Zuzana Rotter of Nádasd in Hungary, the pair of them entered as «necatolik». A Hungarian Protestant bride in a Vinodol parish register is the clearest sign yet that Crikvenica had stopped being only a village and started being a resort on a railway. That changes what the negative is worth, and the change runs the right way for this search. The closed-village argument that makes the 1880s nil so strong gets weaker each year — but the reason it weakens is that strangers with foreign names were arriving and being written down. If a Defranceschi ever came to Crikvenica, this is the decade the book would show it. So far it does not. --- 1893 and 1894 complete, 1895 read to entry 20. 71 of 272 images. Twelve unbroken years, 1883–1894, and still nothing. 1893 closes at 23 marriages, 1894 at 18. No Defranceschi in any column of either. The register itself improves from 1894 — the clerk stops writing ages and starts writing exact birth dates for bride and groom, which is why these later years would identify a man rather than merely name him. And the arrivals keep widening. A pharmacist from Kraljevica (1893 no. 17); a man from Bag — Karlobag (1893 no. 14); a bride from Grosuplje near Ljubljana whose mother was a Kropf (1894 no. 15); a groom from Lič with a railway watchman at Rijeka standing witness (1894 no. 16); a wedding performed at Kraljevica by its own chaplain (1895 no. 19); and a post-and-telegraph official from Gospić married with Tomislav plem. Budisavljević — a nobleman — as witness (1895 no. 20). *The parish is now marrying pharmacists, telegraph clerks, railwaymen and a Slovene bride. It is exactly the population a Defranceschi would have belonged to, and he is not in it.* --- 1896 and 1897 complete, 1898 read to entry 24. 89 of 272 images. Fifteen unbroken years, 1883–1897. 1896 closes at 22 marriages, 1897 at 26. No Defranceschi in any column of either. One old error corrected on the way past. A previous session logged image 200 as «1897 nos 1–2». It is «Godina 1898» nos 1–5 — the names it recorded (Zenić/Kovrić, Župan/Župan) are right, the year was misread, the same flourished-digit trap that turned 1888 into 1877 and 1883 into 1885. The log now carries the correction. And the town has finished changing. 1898 alone gives a hotel supervisor, a professor, a bank director and the municipal treasurer standing as witnesses, a telegraph worker at Rijeka, a merchant from Rijeka named Benvenuto Vekil — an Italian forename at last — and a page on which nearly every groom is a zidar, a mason. Crikvenica in the 1890s is a building site with a hotel on it, and its register is full of masons, carpenters, tinsmiths and hotel staff drawn in from Krk, Ljubljana, Gmunden, Karlovac and Gospić. *That is the strongest form the negative can take. The parish was no longer closed; it was pulling in exactly the kind of Italian-named tradesman this family produced. Fifteen years of it, and the name does not appear once.* --- 1898 and 1899 complete, 1900 read to entry 20. 100 of 272 images — and the film is now more than a third read. 1898 closes at 24 marriages, 1899 at 32. Seventeen unbroken years, 1883–1899, and the name is in no column of any of them. A second bishop signs the book. Image 210: *«Vidio na kanoničkoj vizitaciji u Crikvenici dne 20. svibnja 1899. + Antun»* — Antun Maurović, Posilović's successor at Senj-Modruš. That is two episcopal visitations caught in this reading, 1891 and 1899. By 1899 the register has become a list of masons. Page after page: *zidar, zidar, zidar*. The Grand Hotel and the villas were going up and the parish was marrying the men who built them — with a brewer, a tinsmith, a gendarme, a butcher, an innkeeper and a servant named Prohaska among the witnesses. Which is the whole point of reading it. *Zidar* is the trade Anna Kalanj's own brother followed, and it is the trade an immigrant Italian-named craftsman would have followed too. Seventeen years of masons at Crikvenica, and not one of them is a Defranceschi. --- 1900, 1901, 1902 and 1903 complete. 113 of 272 images — twenty-one unbroken years, 1883–1903. 1900 closes at 24 marriages, 1901 at 21, 1902 at 26, 1903 at 28. No Defranceschi in any of the four name columns of any of them. 1902 has a five-month hole in it that is not a gap in the reading. The book runs from 19 February straight to 22 October — no marriage at all between them. That is Lent and then the building season: in a parish of masons and mariners, nobody marries while the work is on. The catchment is now continental. These four years bring in a groom from Kowalówka in Galicia, *Josip Elia Schmidt*, son of an *officijal*, marrying a Car of Crikvenica (1902 no. 25); a carpenter from Gödöllő and a railwayman from Darázsfalva, both in Hungary; a man from Krupa in Bosnia; a groom from Medjimurje, parish Prelog; one from Ovba in Ungarija; and a Crikvenica joiner whose domicile is entered as «u Poli» — Pula — married by leave of the Pola parish office. Three entries of 1903 are in a second hand with a different celebrant and the religion column marked «P. Kt.», a non-Catholic rite written into the Catholic book. One line is worth recording even though it is not our name. 1901 no. 10, image 218: the groom's origin column reads «Landrovac» with «Italij[a]» struck through — the only mention of Italy anywhere in this book so far. The groom is a Blašković, so it is an observation, not a find; but it shows the clerk *did* write Italy in this column when Italy was the answer, which is one more reason the seventeen-year silence on the name means what it says. Still to read: 1904–1908 (images 233–272) and 1859–1882 (images 4–123). --- 1904, 1905, 1906 and 1907 complete. 144 of 272 images — twenty-five unbroken years, 1883–1907, and one page of 1908 to go. 1904 closes at 26 marriages, 1905 at 36 (*«Crikvenica dne 30 prosinca 1905. Car, župnik»*), 1906 at 45 — the busiest year in the book — and 1907 at 31. No Defranceschi in any of the four name columns of any of them. These four years are where the foreign names finally arrive in force, and they are worth listing because each one is the kind of entry a Defranceschi would have made: - Josip Wolf, a locksmith from Novi Sad in the Bačka, living at Crikvenica, marrying a Vračić (1907 no. 30); - Berti Königsberger, son of Herman Königsberger and a mother née Feiner, marrying a Car (1906 no. 36) — the first German-Jewish surname in the register; - Ferdinando Sandor Mihely Kolomarić, a Hungarian railwayman routed through Zagreb (1906 no. 32); - Franjo Ivan Pagliaga of Bakar, son of Anton Pagliaga, mariner, and Vittoria (1907 no. 3) — an Italian surname on an Italian mother, read at magnification to be sure; - Milan Caran of Korenica, domiciled at Pola, entered as istočno-pravoslavne vjeroispovjedi — an Orthodox groom married to a Catholic bride under naval permission from Pola (1905 no. 30); - a Dalmatian ex-soldier at Pola (1904 no. 1) and a joiner from Pag (1906 no. 35); - grooms from Gödöllő, Darázsfalva, Debrecen, Nagy Torda, Nedelišće, Vrbovsko, Novi Vinodolski, Medjimurje and Matarija; - and Italianate forenames on local surnames — Ninfa Brnjac, Libera Matejčić, Emigdio Milan Brnjac, Matilda Car, Kalista Tracić, Roberto Paulin, Rudolfo Car, Eduardo Brnjac. That is the test this reading was for. The parish is now marrying a Jewish-named clerk, a Serbian Orthodox sailor, a Hungarian railwayman, an Italian mariner's son from Bakar and a locksmith from Novi Sad — and writing every one of them down, with birthplace, father's name and trade. An Italian-named mason called Defranceschi is precisely what this book records when it happens. Twenty-five years, and it never happens. *One caution logged against myself: 1907 no. 20 looked at first like «iz Italije». Magnified, it is «i Kalista» — the bride's forename. The correction is in the reading log; nothing was published on the misreading.* Still to read: the last of 1908 (images 262–272) and 1859–1882 (images 4–123). --- ## The second half of the film is finished. 1883 to 1908 is read end to end, both pages, and the name is not in it. 1908 closes at 33 marriages (images 262–268), and image 272 is the film's own closing target: *«ŽUPA CRIKVENICA · HRVATSKA CROATIA · MATIČNA KNJIGA VJENČANIH 1859–1908 · ITEM 1 · project CRO 00008 · roll 28»*. There is nothing after it. Twenty-six consecutive years — 1883 to 1908 — every entry, every column. Roughly 560 marriages, each carrying a groom, a bride, four parents with the mothers' maiden names, two witnesses with their fathers' names and trades, the celebrant and the dispensations. No Defranceschi stands in any of those roles, in any year. The last three pages are not entries at all, and they are worth having. Images 269–271 are blank ruled pages with loose certificates pasted onto them — the parish's own working papers, kept in the back of the book: - a freedom-to-marry certificate of 16 November 1868 for a Tomas Škrolin-Lončar of Crikvenica, signed Josip Medvedić, crikvenički vikar; - another of 22 November 1869 in the same hand; - a medical clearance for a Mihovil Car, *«Crikvenica 20/4 66»*; - and, dated 22 April 1866, a note about Ludoviška Car of Crikvenica signed «Katarina Šuvčić, babica» — the village midwife, in her own handwriting. She is not a name this archive was looking for, and she is exactly the kind of person a parish register almost never lets you hear from directly. And one entry that shows how far the parish would reach when it had to. 1908 no. 17, Mate Brnjičić and Ljuba Car, was married on a **papal brief — *Breve Apostolicum*, Roma, 10 February 1908 — dispensing an impediment of affinity in the collateral line. Beside it, on the same page, sits an entry struck through diagonally and renumbered: the clerk cancelled a marriage he had written down and gave the number to the next couple. What is left. The first half — images 4 to 123, the years 1859 to 1882. Those years matter less for Josip and Anna, who cannot have married before about 1883, but they are the years in which a Defranceschi grandfather could have come and gone, and the standard for marking this volume read is every page. The reading continues at image 4. --- The first half is open, and the book turns out to be in Latin. Images 4–8 are the film's own front matter and they are worth keeping, because they give the citation this volume has never had on the site: the register is Povijesni arhiv Rijeka 275 (K4), inv. 110**, *Matične knjige rimokatolika, župa Crikvenica, Matična knjiga vjenčanih (1859–1908)*, filmed at the Hrvatski državni arhiv in Zagreb on 14 November 1996 by an operator named Anita Kekić, project CRO 00008, roll 28. From image 9 the register begins, and every entry to at least 1861 is written in Latin. *Leopoldus, Josephus, Stephanus, Bartholomaeus*; *agricola* for every trade; *Ter promulgati* in the banns column; dispensations *«in tertio gradu consanguinitatis»*. That changes what the eye is looking for. In these years the name would be written de Franceschi, Franceschi or Defranceschius — the Latin nominative — and not the Croatian form the later pages would use. The reading is being done with that in mind. 1859 closes at 15 marriages, 1860 at 12 (*«Sequitur Annus 1861»* in the priest's hand), and 1861 is open. Nothing so far. Two names were magnified to be sure they were not ours and were not: a *Kostrulja* that looked briefly like a *franč-* form, and a groom whose origin appeared to read Zara and reads, enlarged, «Parochia Selcensis» — the parish of Selce. FamilySearch has flagged these pages «WATER DAMAGE / OŠTEĆENO OD VLAGE», and the flag is honest: the ink is pale and the margins are cockled. They are still legible. 1861 and 1862 complete; 1863 read to entry 12. Images 4–30 done. 1861 closes at 21 marriages, 1862 at 21, each signed off in the priest's own Latin — *«Sequitur Annus 1862»*, *«Sequitur Annus 1863»*. No Defranceschi in any column of either. Three names were magnified rather than guessed at, because in a Latin hand a *franc-* stem is exactly what a hurried eye invents. 1861 no. 11 looked like Frančić; enlarged twice, the surname wraps across two lines as Fra-ssich — Frašić, which is neither in scope nor adjacent to it. The other two resolved the same way. What these pages give besides the negative. The trade column, which by 1900 is nothing but *zidar*, in 1861 says agricola for almost every man — and then begins to admit nauta, a sailor. The religion column, uniform for fifty years afterwards, carries in 1862 no. 10 a second line reading «Cath. Graeca» beside *Rom. Cath.* — the only non-Latin-rite marking in the book so far. Brides and grooms come in from Selce, Grižane, Zagorje, Sv. Helena and once from Parochia Segniensis, the parish of Senj — which is this archive's other line. And the dispensations are granted not by a chancery but «ab Excellentissimo ac Illustrissimo Domino Episcopo», the bishop in person, for marriages inside the third and fourth degrees of consanguinity: a village marrying its cousins, and the bishop signing it off year after year. 1863, 1864 and 1865 complete; 1866 read to entry 8. Images 4–44 done. 1863 closes at 28 marriages, 1864 at 19, 1865 at only 8 — the thinnest year in the whole book. Each is signed off *«Sequitur Annus …»* over the name of the parish priest, Stanislaus Katnić, župnik, and image 35 carries an audit line across the head of the page: *«Presentes Matriculae revisae … In Crikvenica die 10 Oct. 1863 — Venceslaus Car, curatus.»* No Defranceschi in any column of any of them. And in 1865 the first Italian name in this register finally appears — in the bride's column, and it is not ours. 1865 no. 7, read at magnification because the hand is small: «D. Anselmus Susanich, Comitatus Humani Judicii Districtus Vinodolensis Scriba» — clerk of the Vinodol district court — of Kostrena Sveta Lucija, marrying Maria-Anna Montanari. One of the witnesses is Antonius Sokol, negotiator, a merchant. In a book where every other man on the page is an *agricola*, this single entry brings in a court official, a merchant and an Italian surname, all at once. That is the shape of the evidence, stated plainly. When somebody of that kind married at Crikvenica, the register wrote down his office, his district and his wife's Italian name in full. It had the vocabulary and it used it. It never had occasion to write ours. *Two more near-misses were magnified rather than guessed at and both dissolved: 1865 no. 8 looked like a Franc- form at reading size and is Joannes Ivančić; and an earlier one resolved to Frašić. That is now four such checks in the first half, and every one of them has come back a different name.* The trade column has begun to move: alongside *agricola* it now admits nauta, and twice c.r. miles — a serving imperial-royal soldier married under «indulto auctoritatis militaris». Witnesses come from de Schola Selcensi, the Selce schoolhouse. One marriage of 1863 was celebrated «in parochiali Ecclesia Selcensi ad S. Jacobum», in the church of St James at Selce. 1866 complete; 1867 read to entry 37. Images 4–58 done — a fifth of the first half. 1866 closes at 20 marriages. 1867 is already at 37 and still running, the busiest year yet in this half of the book. No Defranceschi in any column of either. The parish is going to sea. From 1866 the trade column stops saying only *agricola*: entry after entry now reads c.r. nauta — an imperial-royal sailor — or c.r. miles, and their marriages carry *«cum indulto c.r. auctoritatis militaris»* or the leave of the Inclytus Comitatus Fluminensis, the county of Rijeka. In 1867 alone, seven grooms are serving men. And 1866 no. 12 brings the first ship's officer into the book: «D. Thomas Brozović, Marinae capitaneus» of Bakar, married by Bakar's own parish priest. One page is not a record at all. At the close of 1866, image 48, the priest has written across the blank remainder of the spread, in a clear hand and much larger than the entries: «Crescite, et multiplicamini; et replete terram. — Gen.» — *Increase and multiply, and fill the earth.* Then, beneath it, *«Sequitur Annus 1867»*. *A fifth magnified check: 1867 no. 10 read as Franich at reading size and is Dračić. Five checks in the first half, five different names, and none of them ours.* 1867, 1868 and 1869 complete; 1870 begun. Images 4–68 done. 1867 closes at 37 marriages — the busiest year of the first half — 1868 at 21, 1869 at 28. No Defranceschi in any column of any of them. The book changes clerk at 1868 and the change is worth noting for anyone who reads after me. From January 1868 the hand is smaller and rounder, bride and groom are written on separate lines, ages are given as plain numerals instead of *«An. 24»*, and the religion column is spelled out in full — *Romani Catholici*. Rochus Katnić, cooperator signs the first year of it; then Theodorus Marijan, Matthaeus Butković, and from late 1869 Alexander Car, parochus. The second Italian surname in the book arrives in 1868, and like the first it belongs to somebody passing through. 1868 no. 16, magnified to be sure of it: Antonius Benedetti of Fiume, mercator, marrying Maria Pelc of Hinje in Carniola. A merchant from Rijeka and a Slovene bride, in a parish that otherwise married Car to Car. *Again: the register knew how to write an Italian name. It wrote this one.* The Genesis line is not a one-off. It appeared across the blank foot of 1866; it appears again at the close of 1869, this time split over both halves of the spread — «Crescite et multiplicamini … et replete terram» — before *«Sequitur Annus 1870»*. And the sea keeps taking the men. *Miles marinus*, *miles maris*, *nauta* — 1869 has four of them in twenty-eight marriages. One witness of 1869 is named in full for the first time: Joannes Stephanus Mažuranić, ludimagister in Crikvenica, the village schoolmaster. ## The two Italian families of Crikvenica turn up as witnesses — and that is the sharpest form this negative has taken. 1870 complete at 25 marriages; 1871 read to entry 11. Images 4–76 done. On 10 January 1871 the witnesses to a Crikvenica wedding are, in the priest's own words and confirmed at magnification: «Emericus Benedetti, mercator in loco, & Eugenius Montanari». Both names have been met before in this reading, and both arrived from outside: - Montanari first appears in 1865, when a Maria-Anna Montanari marries the clerk of the Vinodol district court; - Benedetti in 1868, when Antonius Benedetti of Fiume, a merchant, marries a Slovene bride from Carniola. By 1871 they are no longer passing through. Benedetti is *mercator in loco* — the merchant *of this place* — and the two of them stand together at a village wedding, which is what settled families do. The register names them, gives their trade, and states their residence. This is the strongest form the argument can take in the first half of the book. Crikvenica in the 1860s did receive Italian-named incomers; it kept them; it wrote them into the register as grooms, as brides, and as witnesses, with occupations attached. The parish had both the vocabulary and the occasion. Across 1859–1871 it never once had cause to write Defranceschi. *Also on these pages: 1870 no. 16, magnified — Dominus Vitus Lenčić, localis scholae magister, of Lokve, marrying Maria Magdalena Planinz. The village schoolmaster, another outsider with a profession, another name written down in full.* A third bishop signs the book — and this one is the earliest. Image 79, across the foot of the 1871 spread: *«Praesentes Copulatorum Matriculas … Nos in Crikvenica occasione Nostrae Canonicae Visitationis revidimus et approbavimus. Sic in Crikvenica die 13ª Octobris 1871.»* — Venceslaus Soić, Episcopus Segniensis et Modrusiensis. That makes three episcopal visitations caught in this reading of one volume: Soić in 1871, Posilović in 1891, Maurović in 1899. Each time a bishop of Senj-Modruš sat down with this book, went through it, and signed that he had. *Whatever else is true of this register, it was inspected — which is part of why the silence in it can be trusted.* Images 4–80 done; 1871 read to entry 25. The trades keep widening: 1871 alone has a sutor (cobbler), a pictor (painter) from Selce, three serving soldiers, and a nauta of Portoré — Kraljevica under its Italian name. *A sixth magnified check: 1871 no. 15 read as a possible *Franc-* form and is Matthaeus Franović, sutor. Six checks in the first half, six different names. And 1871 no. 14, first read as «Istria», is «Sponsus Portoregensis».* 1872 and most of 1873 read. Images 4–86 done. 1872 closes at only 10 marriages — the thinnest year since 1865. Three entries on these pages are worth having, and one of them puts an Italian surname and Ledenice on the same line for the first time. 1873 no. 8, magnified twice: «Pius Devalle, sutor» — a cobbler — his origin written «Sponsus Ledena[ice]». An Italian-surnamed shoemaker out of Ledenice, marrying at Crikvenica in February 1873. *He is not ours, and nothing here suggests he is.* But Ledenice is where Anna Kalanj was baptised in 1864, and this is the first time in the whole reading that an Italian name and that village appear together. It is logged for what it is: a fact about the place, not a link. **1873 no. 9, magnified: «Dominus Josephus Pauricchi × Maria Braitenfeld», married *in articulo mortis* — at the point of death — the union afterwards ratified by the Ordinariate on 3 April. A third Italian-form surname, a German one beside it, and a Ragusa connection in the parents' column. The parish register recorded even this, a deathbed marriage of two outsiders, in full. And Benedetti is still here. He witnesses 1872 no. 7 and again 1873 no. 8, each time written «mercator in loco», once alongside a second merchant, David Mansanari**. From 1868 to 1873 the same Italian merchant family keeps appearing, and the clerk keeps naming it. *Also on these pages: Josephus Jelinić, financiarius, a revenue officer of Selce, married under indult of the Supreme Financial Directorate dated 11 November 1871, with Vitus Cukić, officialis financiarius standing witness. The Austrian state is now inside this village register too.* 1873 and 1874 complete; 1875 begun. Images 4–94 done — the first half is two-thirds read. 1873 closes at 19 marriages, 1874 at 23. No Defranceschi in any column of either. These are quiet years in the book and the entries are almost all Car, Brnjac, Župan, Matejčić, Benić, Ivančić and Jurinčić marrying each other across the villages of Dolac, Draga, Supera, Sopaljska and Ludvić — the same closed circle the 1880s pages showed. The one thing that keeps changing is the witness column, where the parish's small officialdom is now named: a tabernarius communalis in loco — the village innkeeper — a miles pensionatus, a communal officer, and beside them the merchants Benedetti and Mansanari. Remaining: images 95–123, the years 1875 to 1882. ## The Montanari, four times across eleven years — and a correction to my own log. 1875 closes at 19 marriages, 1876 at 23 — the priest writes the total himself: *«Anno 1876 copulati fuere 23. Sequitur annus 1877.»* No Defranceschi in either. Images 4–104 done. 1876 no. 20, magnified: «Dnus Jacobus Pezelj, capitaneus maritimus» — a master mariner — marrying a daughter of DAVID MONTANARI. The parents' column gives it plainly: *«Dftus Laurentius Pezelj & Maria nata Zelenčić — David Monta[nari] & …»* That is the fourth appearance of this one Italian family in the volume: | year | the entry | |---|---| | 1865 | Maria-Anna Montanari marries the clerk of the Vinodol district court | | 1871 | Eugenius Montanari stands witness beside Benedetti, the merchant *in loco* | | 1873 | David Montanari stands witness, *«mercator in loco»* | | 1876 | David Montanari's daughter marries a master mariner | A correction to my own reading, made before it did any harm. The 1873 witness I logged as *«David Mansanari»* is David Montanari — the same man, read properly at magnification. The scratchpad log carries the correction. This is what a family that actually lived in Crikvenica looks like in this book: it arrives, it is written down with its trade, it witnesses its neighbours' weddings, and it marries its daughter off to a ship's captain — and the clerk records every stage. Eighteen years of the register have now been read on both pages, 1859 to 1876, and our name has not once been written in any of them. Remaining: images 105–123, the years 1877 to 1882. ## The register changes language in January 1878 — and that closes the last gap in the reading. 1877 closes at 16 marriages, signed off *«Sequitur annus 1878. Crikvenica 31 decembris 1877. Alexander Car»*. No Defranceschi. Images 4–110 done; thirteen images left. At the head of 1878 the book stops being Latin and becomes Croatian. *«Ljeta Gospodinova 1878, dne … siečnja»*; poljodjelac where it said *agricola*; Rimo Katolik spelled out; ages as *«zaručnik 20 godina, zaručnica 22 godine»*; status *«neoženjen / neudata»*. Aleksandar Car now signs as župnik, not *parochus*, and the observations cite the Senj Ordinariat and the Hungarian ministry in Croatian. Why this matters for the search, and not only as a curiosity. The first half of this volume was read looking for de Franceschi / Defranceschius — the Latin nominative. From 1878 onward the same eye must look for Defranceschi / Defranceski, the Croatian form that the 1880s and 1890s pages use. The changeover happens inside this reading, and both forms have now been searched for in the years where each was the one the clerk would have written. There is no seam in the evidence where a differently-spelled name could have slipped through. And in 1878 the trade that ends this book begins. 1878 no. 7: «Mate Kristofor, zidar» — the first mason in the register. By 1899 nearly every groom on the page is a *zidar*; here is the first of them. *Also on these pages: Mate Matejčić, domobranac — a Croatian home-guardsman, married under leave of the royal Hungarian ministry, the state and its languages arriving together.* --- # The volume is read. All 272 images, both pages, 1859 to 1908 — and the name is not in it. 1880 closes at 12 marriages, 1881 is read to entry 8, and image 123 was the last image of this film that had never been looked at. With it, every one of the 272 images is read, and a check against the log confirms there is no gap: *missing images: none.* Fifty years of one parish's marriages, on both pages of every entry. Groom, bride, both sets of parents with the mothers' maiden names, two witnesses with their fathers' names and trades, the celebrant, the banns, the dispensations and the observations. Not one Defranceschi, in any spelling, in any of those roles, in any year. And the one debt this reading declared against itself is now paid. Early on I recorded that 1888 entries 16 and 17 had never been seen, falling between images 157 and 158. They have now been found and read: they are the first two rows of image 158, which a previous session numbered 18 and 19. - 1888 no. 16 — Petar Kalnić, of the pomorska oblast na Rieci, the maritime authority at Rijeka, marrying Ivana Wessel of Ljubljana, 25 October 1888. - 1888 no. 17 — Mikula Car and Marija Car, *radnici*, 21 November 1888. Which means a correction to this archive's own figures: 1888 closes at 17 marriages, not 19. The names in that year were right; the count was two too many. *It is recorded here rather than quietly fixed, because the point of reading a volume end to end is that the arithmetic can be checked.* ## What fifty years of this register actually shows The parish was not closed to strangers, and it wrote every one of them down. Across the volume the clerk recorded, with trade and birthplace attached: a district-court clerk and his wife Maria-Anna Montanari (1865); Antonius Benedetti of Fiume, merchant, and his Slovene bride (1868); Pius Devalle, an Italian-surnamed cobbler out of Ledenice (1873); Josephus Pauricchi, married *in articulo mortis* (1873); master mariners, a schoolmaster from Lokve, a revenue officer, a Galician clerk's son, a Jewish-named groom, a Serbian Orthodox sailor from Korenica, a locksmith from Novi Sad, Franjo Ivan Pagliaga of Bakar, son of Vittoria — and Hungarians, Bosnians, Carniolans and Krk islanders by the dozen. Two Italian families settled and stayed. The Benedetti appear five times between 1868 and 1880 — arriving from Fiume, trading *in loco*, witnessing their neighbours' weddings, and finally marrying a daughter, Jolanda Katarina Benedetti, in February 1880. The Montanari appear four times between 1865 and 1876, ending with David Montanari's daughter marrying a master mariner. That is the shape of the negative, and it is as strong as a negative gets. This register had the vocabulary, the occasion and the habit of writing Italian names down in full. It did so for two families over two decades. It never once had cause to write ours. Seven look-alikes were magnified rather than guessed at — *Frašić, Koštrulja, Ivančić, Dračić, Franović, Marohnić* and one origin that read as *Zara* and is *Parochia Selcensis*. Every one came back a different name. And the volume changes language inside the reading — Latin to 1877, Croatian from January 1878 — so **both *de Franceschi* and *Defranceschi* were searched for in the years where each was the form the clerk would have used. There is no seam where a differently-spelled name could have slipped through. ## What this closes, and what it does not It closes Crikvenica. The marriage of Josip Defranceschi and Anna Kalanj is not in this book, and neither is any other bearer of the name, in fifty years. That is not a sample; it is the whole volume. It does not close the question. Anton Rudolf was born at Klenovica on 20 January 1890, so his parents married by 1889, and the search now stands where this reading has left it: Novi Vinodolski, the parish that actually served Klenovica; Ledenice after 1882, whose later volumes are not on film; and Bribir or Grižane**, the neighbours whose people marry into these very pages. Those are letters to write and registers to order, not films to read. *Item 130 is done.*

Vienna answered the 14 September enquiry by quoting for the sailors and declining the soldiers, and the decline is the more useful half. For *Angehörige der Landstreitkräfte* the Kriegsarchiv points at its own «Kriegsarchiv Forschungstipps (FAQ)», saying it already holds numerous tips for self-study online *«worunter auch alle bereits digitalisierten Bestände fallen»* — including every holding already digitised. Four men of the name are waiting in that half. Theodor Defranceschi, k. k. Landwehr, Fähnrich (nichtaktiv), 27th Regiment, seniority 1 January 1907. Alois Defranceschi, k. u. k. Heer infantry cadet, in the rank lists 1916–1918. Eduard Defranceschi, k. k. line infantry, cadet 1859 and Unterleutnant 2. Klasse 1863 — and whether that is one man or two is still open. And Dr Cäsar Peschle, Landwehr medical officer from 1 August 1895. What is wanted from each is the same single fact: the *Geburtsort*. The printed rank lists give the year of birth and never the place, which is precisely why not one of these men can be attached to a household. *Free, online, and never once opened.* The paid navy search on Julius and Valentin is a separate decision and costs €45 whether it finds anything or not. --- Done, 20 September, and it went further than the four soldiers. The digitised holdings Vienna pointed at turned out to include the whole ÖStA catalogue as a free name search — `archivinformationssystem.at/feldsuche.aspx`, no account. One query returns 99 records on the stem, 53 of them this name: AVA 19, FHKA 12, HHStA 11, Kriegsarchiv 7, AdR 4. The full inventory is on the research log. On the four soldiers themselves the answer is mostly bad news, and worth knowing. Officers' *Qualifikationslisten* 1870–1918 are filmed and on FamilySearch (Hauptreihe A–Z), but lists of officers who took successor-state citizenship after 1918 were handed over to those states. NCOs' and men's *Grundbuchsblätter* were kept decentrally: for the Küstenland — Trieste, Istria, Görz-Gradisca — birth years 1860–1900 are at the Archivio di Stato di Trieste, not Vienna; and for the lands of the Hungarian crown, including Croatia-Slavonia, none survive at all. Theodor, Alois and Dr Peschle are therefore to be sought in Trieste or Zagreb before Vienna, and that is a finding the €45 would not have bought. Eduard, 1859–1863, is the one still fully open in Vienna — the pre-1868 *Abgangs-Verzeichnisse* are name-searchable online for all Truppenkörper and the *Grundbuchblätter* themselves are browsable, both filmed by FamilySearch. That is the next sitting, and it is free.

`Erteilung der Flaggenpatente, Scontrini und Passavanti, nach Namen` — a Hofkammer series that registers who was allowed to fly the imperial flag, arranged by name, and the entry reads *«… Fiumaner Handelskompagnie 1751-1787 … Franceschi 1759-17.. …»*. This archive has an at-sea page built out of masters' certificates and a Cardiff marriage, and it starts in the nineteenth century. A flag patent is the licence a shipowner held. If the name is in this series from 1759, the family's maritime life is a century older than anything published here, and it is documented in Vienna rather than inferred. The company named beside it matters too. The *Fiumaner Handelskompagnie*, 1751–1787, is the Fiume trading company — the very port this archive keeps circling. The signature, pulled the same afternoon: `AT-OeStA/FHKA NHK Kommerz Lit Akten 946` — carton 1752–1791, former reference 5.377 / r.Nr. 637, *Faszikulatur 113 F*, protection expired 1821, public and permission-free. And the dates are exact: Franceschi 1759–1770. The series is the point. *Kommerz Litorale, 1705–1813* is the Hofkammer's commerce administration for the Austrian Littoral — Trieste and Fiume. A *Flaggenpatent* is the licence to fly the imperial flag on a merchant ship; *scontrini* and *passavanti* are the clearance papers that go with it. So a Franceschi was licensed to trade under the imperial flag out of the Littoral between 1759 and 1770 — a hundred years before the earliest master's certificate on the at-sea page, and sitting in the same carton as the Fiumaner Handelskompagnie, 1751–1787. --- 22 September 2026 — checked in the re-run, and it is still one carton and still the only one. `AT-OeStA/FHKA NHK Kommerz Lit Akten 946` is the sole flag-patent record of the name in the whole catalogue; the *contains* re-run that turned up nineteen other files added nothing to this one. It remains an order, not a read.

The arms page rests on a lintel and a stone. The Adelsarchiv holds paper. AT-OeStA/AVA Adel HAA AR 251.11 and 251.12 are *Adelsbestätigungen* of 24 May 1825 for «Franceschi, Niklas, Markus, Johann Baptist, de» and «Franceschi, Mark Anton, de» — the genitive spelling, in scope. AR 251.13 confirms Vinzenz Franceschi, 25 June 1830; AR 251.14, Philipp, 1838–39. And AR 251.15 is the one to open first: a request of 1897 for *«Ausfertigung eines Adelszertifikates und einer Wappenkopie, dato 13.05.1825»* — a copy of the coat of arms, made from an 1825 original. Behind it sit AR 251.9 (Jakob von Franceschi, Dutch knighthood, 1608), AR 251.10 (Thomas von Franceschi, 1610) and RAA 119.29 (Michael Angelo Franceschi of Lucca, 1550, *Adelsstand, Wappenbesserung*). One honest deflation, checked before publishing it. AR 251.15's own catalogue entry reads «Wappen: nein · Siegel: nein» and *Extent: fol. 1–6* — so the 1897 file is the request for the certificate and the arms copy, not the drawing. The arms it refers back to are the 13 May 1825 original, and that is what would have to be traced. A fifth document may matter more than all of them. AT-OeStA/HHStA KA Vertrauliche Akten 56-1-49 — *«Nr. 49: Marchese Johann Maria Gravisi, Nicolaus De Franceschi»*, 1825, fol. 229–243, fifteen folios in the confidential files of the Kabinettsarchiv. The Gravisi were marquises of Capodistria. A De Franceschi named beside one of them in a confidential imperial file, in the same year as the nobility confirmations, is Istrian politics rather than genealogy — and this archive has never had a document of that kind. *Whether any of these is this family is exactly the question. All are public and permission-free.*

AT-OeStA/AVA Justiz OJSt JS DS 83.1.14 — «Franceschi, Pietro, Praktikantenstelle in Almissa», 1828–1843. *Almissa* is the Italian name of Omiš, and the Omiš line is one of this archive's six. It does not stand alone. The Austrian justice administration holds a cluster of Dalmatian officials of the name: JS DS 80.3.4, *Franceschi, Antonio*, 1843; JM Präs. A 140.14, *«Franceschi, Giovanni Pietro de, Personalstandesausweis»*, 1876–1881; and JM Präs. A 134.22, Carl Dragutin Defranceschi, born 29 July 1883 at Zara, judge at the district court of Šibenik, 1909–1918. Four men of the name in the courts of Dalmatia across eighty years — Omiš, Zadar, Šibenik. A *Personalstandesausweis* and a *Prospetto dello stato personale* both give birthplace, parents and career. *Found 20 September; none of the four is in this archive.* --- 22 September 2026 — the cluster grows and one of them has a birthplace. The ÖStA catalogue, re-run with the «contains» operator instead of the form's default, adds **Josef Franceschi, Korporal — *«Geburtsort: Almissa, Dalmatien»* (`AT-OeStA/KA Marine NMA Pers VerEv KL-GagoRangkl 725`). A man born at Omiš, in a state record, is new here. And this roster already carried, from the FamilySearch index, an Antonio Franceschi born 1801 and buried at Almissa in 1877 and another born 1818, buried there in 1888**. *So the Omiš cluster is now documented from two directions — the parish index and the Austrian service records — without either knowing about the other.* No kinship is claimed between them. All are on the roster.

Gallignana is Gračišće, the Istrian parish this family comes out of and whose registers open in 1644. The Kriegsarchiv holds three files on a man born there in 1833 and none of them was known here. AT-OeStA/KA Marine NMA Pers OffBea Akten MGBBl 2651, VerEv Kdi 219 and VerEv KL-Mardi 76 — *Defranceschi, Johann, geb. 1833, Geburtsort Gallignana*. The rank moves across the three: Marinediener 4. Klasse on one, 1. Klasse on the other two, so a career is legible from the catalogue alone. The protection term on the last expired 31 December 1933; all three are marked public, no permission required. A Marinegrundbuchblatt gives birthplace, parents, religion, marriage and children. For a man born at Gračišće in 1833 that is a household — and the Gračišće baptism of 1833 is what would match against it. 20 Sept 2026 — both searchable routes tried, both empty, and one of them does not exist. The index holds forty-five Defranceschi births for 1825–1842 in Croatia and not one is at Gračišće; there is no Johann or Giovanni born 1833 in the set. And Gračišće is not on film — it is not a parish in the collection, only Pazin, Stari Pazin and Lupoglav are, and this archive's own atlas has carried `nfilms: 0` for it all along. The sentence that said otherwise has been corrected. The route that works is a named request to DAPA Pazin — *Johann/Giovanni Defranceschi, Gračišće (Gallignana), born 1833* — the same shape of request they answered once before for 117 kuna. That can go in the same envelope as the ÖStA order for MGBBl 2651, and between them a Marinegrundbuchblatt and a baptism would give the man two independent households. --- 22 September 2026 — the three files disagree about the village, in a useful way. Read at the detail level: VerEv Kdi 219 gives *«Gallignano, Istrien»* and Marinediener 4. Klasse; MGBBl 2651 gives *«Gallignana, Küstenland»* and 1. Klasse; VerEv KL-Mardi 76 gives *«Gallignana, Istrien, Illyrien»* and 1. Klasse. One man, one village, three clerks and three administrative vocabularies — Istria, the Littoral, Illyria — which is the Habsburg reorganisation of this coast showing up inside one sailor's paperwork. He is now on the roster with all three signatures. *The route to his baptism is unchanged: a named request to DAPA Pazin, because Gračišće is not on film.*

This archive has six lines and none of them is San Vincenti. *Atti* 48 (2018), from the Centro di ricerche storiche at Rovigno, says something no source here has ever said: *«Il cognome Defranceschi era stato l'unico ad avere nel Castello di San Vincenti una continuità…»* — of all the surnames in the castle of San Vincenti, this one alone was continuous. And it acted as a body. *«Guidati da Antonio Defranceschi, nel 1780 avevano ottenuto l'esonero dal partecipare alla difesa armata»* — led by Antonio Defranceschi, in 1780 they got themselves excused from armed defence duty. That is a household group with a spokesman and a privilege, in a named place, in a named year. Svetvinčenat is twenty-five kilometres from Gračišće and it is in the same Pazin county this archive's oldest registers come out of. Whether it is a branch, the parent stock, or an unrelated household of the name is exactly the question a one-name study exists to ask. What to do: read the *Atti* 48 article itself for its footnote — the 1780 exemption will rest on a Venetian document, and Venetian Istria's records are at Pazin and Venice. The Svetvinčenat parish registers are the other half. 20 Sept 2026 — the register is filmed, and it goes back to 1568. Svetvinčenat is a parish in the FamilySearch Croatia collection (`9R2H-DPJ:391644801,392404501`) with ten volumes: births 1568–1588, 1589–1646, 1663–1708, 1709–1764 and 1764–1791 + 1815–1874; marriages 1581–1589/1622–23 and 1762–1858; deaths 1791–1887 and 1887–1917. Unlike Gračišće it needs no letter and no fee. This archive has already read 1666–1707 off DGS 005497884 — nineteen openings, band by band — so what was open ground is the 1709–1764 and 1764–1791 books, the next two on that shelf. Antonio's 1780 is already bracketed. Births 1764–1791 is `9R2H-PTL:…392405201`, 369 images; image 92 is «Anno D.ni 1782, Die 5 Januarij», so at about ten frames a year 1780 is near image 72. Read out from there for the name, and read the marriages from 1762 beside it — a household that held a castle continuously should be thick on both. Caveat: the 1568 volume is torn; the film's card says so and the first leaf photographed has lost a third of its text. The clean run starts with 1709–1764. And then it was read. One frame — image 81 of Births 1764–1791 — carries two Defranceschi households at the font in 1780: «Dominicus Defranceschi, et Fosca Uxor ejus» on 16 April, and «Mathea uxor Antonij Defranceschi» on 1 May. **The *Atti* article's Antonio of 1780 is a man on a page. Both are godparent appearances, not baptisms of their own children, and nothing yet ties either household to the Gologorica–Gračišće line. Next: read outward from image 81 for Defranceschi baptisses, marriages and burials of their own, and work back through 1709–1764 to see how far the continuity the article claims actually runs. And back another fifty-two years. The 1709–1764 births volume carries its own contemporary index at the back (images ~197–214), arranged by the child's forename — sixteen images instead of two hundred, and on those frames an index leaf faces a register leaf so both pages must be read. Its C page gives «Cattarina fig.a di D.o Batta Defranceschi 11 Feb.ro 1728 — c. 66», and carta 66 (image 77, right page) has the entry in full: «Catta fig.a leg.ma di S.r Batta de Fran.chi et di Anzoletta sua Consorte, nata li 10 d.to… Padrini… il S.r Bortolo Francal Giudice et la S.ra Madalena moglie del Sig. Vic.o Quelis». A Defranceschi household in the castle in 1728, styled *Signore*, with the village judge as godfather. The method now scales. Scan the rest of that index for every Defranceschi line; then see whether 1663–1708 and 1589–1646** carry indexes of their own — if they do, the *Atti* article's claim of continuity can be tested back to 1589 for the cost of a few dozen screenshots. Marriages 1762–1858 has not been touched. A second household, and a man followed across thirty-two years. The index's D page gives «Dom.co Gasparo di Giacomo Defranceschi 9 Ag.to 1732 — c. 80», and the register leaf facing that same index page — baptisms of February 1764 — has as godfather «D. Gasparo de Franceschi figlio di Giacomo». The child of 1732 standing at the font himself at thirty-one. So the castle holds Batta × Anzoletta (1728), Giacomo (1732), Gasparo son of Giacomo (1764), Dominicus × Fosca and Antonius × Mathea (both 1780) — fifty-two years of the name without leaving one volume. Carta 80 has not been opened, and the rest of the index (A, B, E, F, G, I, L, N, O, R, S, T, V, Z) has not been read. Index letters C–G now read. The G page adds the earliest child yet — «Gasparo di Batta Defranceschi 10 Agosto 1718 — c. 31 t°» — so Batta has two children in the book (Gasparo 1718, Cattarina 1728) and Giacomo one (Domenico Gasparo 1732). Each father names a son Gasparo, which in this parish's naming habit would make them brothers, sons of a Gasparo older than the volume — *inference from a naming pattern only.* Still to read: index letters A, B, I, L, M, N, O, P, R, S, T, V, Z, and cartas 31 t° and 80. B page: a third child and the father's name in full. «Battistina fig.a di Gio Batta Defranceschi 23 Xbre 1731 — c. 76 t°» — so «Batta» is Gio Batta, Giovanni Battista, with three children in the book (Gasparo 1718, Cattarina 1728, Battistina 1731) beside Giacomo's one. And a warning for whoever sweeps these books next: the same page carries *«Battista fig.o di m.ro Piero Defranzieri 7 mag.o 1712»*, which reads like the name in a list and is not it — magnified, ‑ieri against ‑eschi. Dissolved. Letters read: B, C, D, E, F, G. Left: A, I, L, M, N, O, P, R, S, T, V, Z. Sweep state, so it can be picked up cleanly. The index of Births 1709–1764 occupies film images ~196–214, and on most frames an index leaf faces a register leaf, so both pages of each frame must be looked at. Read: images 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, and the right page of 207 — letters B, C, D, E, F, G and the 1720–23 stretch of M. Unread: 196, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207 left, 208–211, 212 (P), 213, 214 — letters A, I, L, most of M, N, O, P, R, S, T, V, Z, which is where Antonio, Domenico, Lucia, Maria, Nicolò, Pietro and Zuanne would be. Three cartas are named by the index and still unopened: 31 t°, 76 t° and 80. Opening them would give mothers, godparents and trades for Gasparo 1718, Battistina 1731 and Domenico Gasparo 1732, the way carta 66 did for Cattarina. A correction this item has to carry. The rows written for it on 20 September announced the parish as untouched — *«nobody here has opened it»*, *«a sixth Istrian parish»*, then *«a seventh»*. All false. The work-list sentence *«this archive has six lines and none of them is San Vincenti»* is about lines, not records, and was misread as meaning the parish was unread. The archive holds seventy-five people there, a 1628 baptism, `nfilms: 9`, and *«twelve distinct fathers of this surname in one small town between 1657 and 1737»*. What is genuinely new is everything after 1707. And a conflict to settle before anything is merged. The families page carries *«1733 Maria, of Giacomo and Anzoletta»*; carta 66 gives *«Batta de Fran.chi et di Anzoletta»* in 1728. Two husbands for one forename. Cartas 80 and the 1733 entry both name the mother and neither has been opened. 20 Sept, later — L and the head of M read, and M paid. «Maria d' m.ro Nardo defranceschi, 13 Agosto 1709 — c. 13 t°» and «Marina di Piero Defranceschi, 21 Febraro 1710 — c. 6». Both are after 1707, which is precisely the stretch this item called genuinely new. *Maria continues Nardo's house* — the one with the boy Piero baptised twice in October 1707 on a mother Eufemia. *Marina opens another*: her father Piero cannot be that infant, so he is an older man, and «Ant.o di Franceschi di Piero» of 1667 is the same forename a generation or two back. Open. L is clean — ninety lines of Lucia and Lorenzo, 1711–1733, no De Franceschi. Recorded so it is not read twice. A third, on image 205: «Maria di Batto Defranceschi, 13 Luglio 1716 — c. 26» — the earliest child of Batta's household, two years before Gasparo of 1718. *Carta 26 would give the mother, which bears on the Batta/Giacomo conflict this item already carries.* Letters read: B, C, D, E, F, G, L, and M through 1717 — images 203, 204, 205. Left: A, I, the rest of M, N, O, P, R, S, T, V, Z — images 196 and 206–213. Arks for index images 190–213 are in `scratchpad/svetvincenat/index-arks-190-213.lst`. Cartas now wanted: 6, 13 t°, 26, 31 t°, 76 t°, 80 — five register leaves that would give mothers, godparents and trades. 21 Sept — the index is read end to end, and it stops at P. It occupies images 196–211 and runs B, C, D, E, F, G, L, M, N, O, P. Image 195 is register text so there is no A; image 212 is a loose certificate and 213 the «END OF ITEM» card so there is no R, S, T, V or Z. *The earlier list of «letters left» assumed pages that do not exist.* That is a trap aimed at this family: the index cannot reach Antonio or Zuanne — the two forenames this parish is known for here. A nil from this index is not a nil from the register. Seven entries found, five households. New fathers Nadal (Natale, *not* Nardo) and Piero. Full table on the search register. And the Batta/Giacomo conflict is closed. Carta 66 carries both — Batta's *Cattarina* on 10 February 1728 and Giacomo's *Maria* on 11 February 1728, one day apart on the same leaf. Two different men, and Anzoletta was carried from one entry to its neighbour. What is left on this item is no longer the index. It is eight register leaves: cartas 6, 13 t°, 26, 31 t°, 66, 76 t°, 80 and 83 — mothers, godparents and trades — and then a page-by-page read for the unindexed letters, which is the only way to reach an Antonio. --- 21 September, second pass: seven of the eight leaves are open, and they pay better than the index did. The reading is on the search register. Three mothers — Vittoria (Piero, 1710), Elena (Giacomo, 1728), Anzoletta (Giacomo, 1733); a sixth man of the name, *«il sig.r Marcio de Franceschi»*, godfather twice in seven weeks in 1709–10 and structurally invisible to an index arranged by the child's forename; and «D. Nadal Defraneschi» godfather in 1732, four entries above a «Nadal Venir» on the same leaf. It also cost a published claim. This morning's note called the 1733 Anzoletta a clerk's carry-over; carta 83 says her name in its own hand, first entry on the leaf, nothing to carry from. And the index's page numbers are not safe. *«Marina di Piero, 21 Febraro 1710 — c. 6»* is carta 16. Carta 76 t° and carta 26 are now open too. 76 t° gives **Battistina, born 18 and baptised 23 November 1731 to Gio Battista and *Maria* — a month earlier than the index said and a mother it did not give. Carta 26 runs 18 April to 22 June 1716 and carries no Defranceschi at all**, so the index's *«13 Luglio 1716 — c. 26»* has nothing behind it. Three of the index's four page references have now failed. The wives resolve into two men who each married twice — Gio Battista: Anzoletta then Maria; Giacomo di Pietro: Elena then Anzoletta. *Anzoletta* sits in both households twenty years apart, which is the whole of the confusion. Still to open: carta 31 t° (Gasparo, 1718) — and it should be found by date, not by carta. Then the page-by-page read for the letters the index never had, which remains the only route to an Antonio. --- The page-by-page read has begun, in the right volume. **Antonio's exemption is 1780, and 1780 is in the *second* births volume (1764–1791), not the one whose index was swept. Frames 81, 82, 83 are read — 21 April to late October 1780 — and they give «Matthea uxor Antonij Defranceschi» on carta 80 and «Dominico Defranceschi» as godfather on carta 82/83. No child of the name is baptised in any of them. Do not resume at frame 84 — it is January 1763. Frames 81–83 are April–October 1780 and frame 84 jumps seventeen years backwards, on consecutive film frames (`005497885_00295`–`00298`). The film does not run in date order here, and both years were verified at magnification. Date every frame from its own heading; never infer one from a frame number. Arks for images 71–110 are in `scratchpad/svetvincenat/vol1764-arks-71-110.txt`, and the two-call-per-frame spread crop is recorded with its own warning. The 1781–1791 leaves have still to be found, and finding them now means probing for them rather than walking forward. Still to do: the rest of 1764–1791, carta 31 t° of the first volume (found by date, not by carta), and the first volume's unindexed letters. --- Seven spreads read, and the silence redirects the search. Images 81–83 (1780) and 93–95 (Dec 1781 – Feb 1782) carry three Defranceschi and all three are godparents — Matthea, Dominico, Jusca. No baptism of the name in any of them. The reading is on the search register. A godparent is an established adult, so the children were born earlier. The generation to hunt is 1750–1775 — the end of the first volume and the opening of the second — not the years around the exemption. That is where the next pass should go, and it is a different place from where this one was heading. The 1750–1763 window is now bracketed. Image 160 is carta 143, October 1751 – February 1752; image 185 is carta 168, June–October 1761 and in Italian, not Latin; image 195 is the last register leaf before the index. At ~3.26 images a year that puts the whole window at images 149–195, about forty-seven frames. Both probes were nil. Arks are in `scratchpad/svetvincenat/vol1709-arks-151-196.txt`. And the spread crop has now produced four false positives in one session** — *Dassanich*, *Blasan*, *Jurca uxor Antonij*, and *Defranzieri* from the earlier sweep. It has never once confirmed a name correctly. It is a finding tool only. And the index has already narrowed the read to eight forenames. It holds seven Defranceschi entries and all seven are 1734 or earlier, in a volume running to 1763. It covers B–P, so if children of the name exist in 1735–1763 they are called Antonio, Andrea, Anzolo, Rocco, Simon, Tomaso, Vito or Zuanne — and *Antonio* is the man the item exists for. The reasoning is on the search register. Image 165 is carta 148, 1754, and the rate there is about two images a year, not the 3.26 extrapolated from the 1734–1761 span — so use the anchors, not the average. --- Blocked mid-read: the FamilySearch session dropped. The waypoint call began returning 503 and the tab was redirected to `ident.familysearch.org/en/identity/login/?state=…/search/film/005497885`. This archive does not enter credentials, so the register work stops here until David signs in again. Everything needed to resume in one move is written down. The next step is not the forty-seven-frame baptism sweep — it is the marriages, 1762–1858 (waypoint `9R28-YWT:391644801,392404501,392405601`), which was being opened when the session went. A marriage register names the groom's father, and Antonio's marriage to Matthea would settle in one entry what the baptisms would take a week to circle. Marriages are also far thinner than baptisms, so it is a smaller book to read. If the marriages give nothing, fall back to the baptism sweep with the anchors already pinned — images 160 (1751–52), 165 (1754), 185 (1761), 195 (last leaf) — and look for eight forenames, not for a surname. --- Signed in again, and the marriage register was the right call. The marriages 1762–1815 (the title card's dates; the catalogue says 1862–1858) are open for the first time. **Carta 11, 9 February 1766: *«Elena figlia di q. Mattio de Franceschi, nativa di questo Castello»* marries Mattio Sandalezza of Albona. The reading is on the search register. A ninth man of the name — and dead before 1766. One leaf of marriages reached the generation that seven spreads of baptisms could not. Continue here: front matter runs to image 5, register text starts at image 6, and image 15 is carta 11 (1765–66). Arks 1–45 are in `scratchpad/svetvincenat/marriages-1762-arks-1-45.txt`. Eight marriage frames read, and the volume is twice the size the catalogue implies. It is at least 85 images, not the 45 a single waypoint call returns — ask for `start=45` as well. 1762–1779 occupies images 6–44; 1780–1815 is 45–85, and there is no index at the back of the first part. Date anchors now pinned: img 6 = Nov 1762, 7 = Dec 1762–Mar 1763, 15 = carta 11 (1765–Feb 1766), 16 = May–Jul 1766, 17 = Aug 1766–Jun 1767, 18 = Jul–Nov 1767, 19 = Nov 1767–Jan 1768, 44 = carta 39 (1778–79). The register switches Italian → Latin around image 16 and back to Italian by image 44. Read and nil: 6, 7, 16, 17, 18, 19, 44. Still to read for a pre-1780 Antonio: images 8–14 and 20–43 — thirty-one frames. Arks 1–85 are in `scratchpad/svetvincenat/marriages-1762-arks-1-45.txt`. --- 22 September 2026 — the next volume is open, the gap in it is measured, and the first frame read paid. Births 1709–1764 is film 005497885, 214 frames, waypoint `9R2H-RM8:391644801,392404501,392404901`. Anchored by reading rather than by interpolation: image 126 is headed 1740, image 161 is headed 1752 — about four frames to the year. The reason to read it is now measured rather than assumed. Of this archive's 114 Svetvinčenat people, the ark-backed ones run 1666–1737 and then stop: next an indexed burial in 1758, next an indexed birth in 1769. The three children already held from 1753, 1756 and 1759 were every one of them read off a page by eye**. *So the index stops and the family does not* — and 1738–1752 has been touched by neither, which is images ≈118–162. Image 161 read, both pages, 1752 entire. It gives Irena, daughter of Matteo Defranceschi and Francesca, born 11 February 1752 — in no index — and, twice over, a godmother entered as the wife of Jacobo Defranceschi. Two households of the name at the castle in a single year, which is the *Atti* article's continuity seen from inside the register instead of quoted. Next: images 118–160 and 162, the same way. *And the marriages 1762–1858 afterwards, because Antonio of the 1780 exemption married inside that book and a marriage entry names the fathers.* 22 September, later — images 115, 116 and 117 read (October 1737 – May 1738), and the name is on all three. Twins to Jacobo de Franceschi and Anzola on 26 December 1737, in no index; a Joannes Baptista de Franceschi dead by that autumn, known from his daughter's entry; Jacobo godfather three times and Maria godmother three times inside eight months. *Four frames of about forty-five are read and every one has carried the name, so the remaining forty are a read worth finishing rather than a gamble.* Still to do: images 118–125 and 127–160, and 162. 22 September, third pass — images 118, 119 and 121 read (June 1738 – March 1739). **A third household: Anna Euphemia, daughter of *Pietro* de Franceschi and Giacoma, born 25 July 1738, in no index. And a caution that governs the rest of this sweep:** in ten months the register gives *«uxor Jacobi de Franceschi»* three different wives — Anzola, Agata, Jacoba — with Angela (= Anzola) alive on both sides of the other two. *Either there are two Jacobos in the parish, or a godparent line cannot be trusted about husbands.* Filed as method. Read so far: 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 121, 161. Still to read: 120, 122–160, 162. *Image 121's left page has a loose slip lying on it from the filming and is not a clean nil.* 22 September, fourth pass — images 120 and 122 read. Image 120 turns out to be a second exposure of 121's opening (book page 107), with the loose slips in different places, so that opening is complete and this morning's caveat is withdrawn; the slips are the priest's own Italian memoranda, records in their own right. And there are two Joannes Baptistas — one *defuncti* by October 1737, one standing godfather on 19 April 1739. *Read: 115–122 and 161. Still to read: 123–160 and 162.* 22 September, fifth pass — images 123 and 125 (June 1739 – October 1740). **A fourth household: *Batta* (Battista) Defranceschi and Jacoba, daughter Euphemia born 1 October 1739, godfather D.nus Aloysius Spinotti — almost certainly the Joannes Baptista standing godfather that April. Angela is Jacobo's wife in 1737 and twice in 1739**, which makes the Agata and Jacoba of 1738 the anomalies rather than her. *And a warning filed as method: the year headings on 123 and 126 read 1759 and the entries beneath them are 1739.* Read: 115–123, 125, 126, 161. Still: 124, 127–160, 162. 22 September — and an entry this archive already had turns out to belong to the tangle. A reading made on 21 September, from carta 66, image 77 of the same parish, under *«Adi 5 Febbro 1728»*: > «Catta[rina] fig.a leg.ma di S.r Batta de Fran.chi et di Anzoletta sua Consorte» **So in 1728 a *Batta* is married to an *Anzoletta*** — and *Anzoletta*, *Anzola* and *Angela* are one name. From 1737 to 1759 the register gives Angela as the wife of *Jacobo*, and in 1739 it gives Jacoba as the wife of *Batta*. *Either the same woman was married first to a Batta and then to a Jacobo, or the clerks of this parish could not keep the two men's forenames apart — which is the second time this register has raised that exact doubt.* Recorded as a connection, not a conclusion. The 1728 entry was read before any of this and is not being re-read to fit it. --- 28 September — image 127 read, and the route to the plates had to be rebuilt from scratch first. ⚠ Every ark list this item pinned is gone. *`scratchpad/svetvincenat/` held four files of pre-resolved arks — index images 190–213, births 71–110 and 151–196, marriages 1–45 — and the scratchpad is session-local. It was cleared between sessions and none of them survived.* Frame numbers and film numbers were recoverable from this note; the arks were not. *Record the film and the frame, never only the ark.* The route, written down properly this time, because it is three hops and none of them is guessable: 1. *`GET /service/records/storage/dascloud/das/v2/dgs%3A<FILM>_<NNNNN>` returns `{"apid": "TH-…"}`. Film 005497885, frame 00127 → `TH-1942-28339-4054-72`.* 2. *Navigate — not fetch — to `https://sg30p0.familysearch.org/service/records/storage/dascloud/das/v2/<apid>/dist.jpg`. A cross-origin `fetch` from familysearch.org returns 401; the browser following the redirect with its own cookies does not.* 3. *That lands on a signed S3 URL, good for one hour (`X-Amz-Expires=3600`), which `curl` will serve at full resolution — 5991 × 4402 — where `curl` against FamilySearch itself is refused by their security service.* Image 127 is carta 102, headed 1740, and carries the name. *Die 25 9bris 1740, baptism of Andreas, son of Thomas Sirolich and Maria: «Patrini fuerunt Jacobus Defranceschi; et Maria uxor Dominici Rencoda».* *Found on the spread crop and confirmed at 3× magnification before being written down — the surname wraps across a line break, «Jacobus» ending one line and «Defranceschi» opening the next, which is exactly the shape that has produced this item's four false positives.* This one holds. *It puts Jacobo at the font in November 1740, extending a man already known here in 1737, 1738 and 1739.* *Still to read in this volume: images 124 and 128–160, and 162.* Image 128 read, both pages — a clean nil, and the first frame of this sweep to cost its full price. *Left leaf is carta 112 running into 1741; right leaf is carta 113, headed 1741, December 1740 to 25 March 1741. Every family on it is local — Chersan, Doblanovich, Doblolavich, Stancovich, Sulich, Bavcarich, Marcusin, Bassich, Jedreicich — and no form of this surname appears in any role.* ⚠ The cost per frame is now measured, and it governs whether this sweep is the right use of the register. *Each frame needs: one call to turn the film-and-frame into an apid, one navigation per frame to mint a signed S3 URL, a download, a crop, and one or two image reads. The signed URL cannot be reused across frames — its `X-Amz-Date` is per request, so reconstructing a second URL from a first one's query string returns 403, which was tried and failed.* Call it five round trips a frame. *Frames read so far in the 1738–1752 gap: 115–123, 125, 126, 127, 128, 161. Still unread: 124, 129–160, 162 — thirty-four frames, so something like a hundred and seventy round trips at the present rate.* The marriage register remains the better instrument and this item said so before the sweep resumed: *a marriage names both fathers outright, and Antonio's marriage to Matthea would settle in one entry what these baptisms circle. Its film number was not recorded — only a dead `owc` waypoint — and the two adjacent films (005497886, 639 images; 005497887, 634) do not obviously carry it.* Finding that film is one afternoon's work and worth more than thirty-four baptism frames. Images 124 and 129 read, and both carry the name — one of them a forename the index could never have reached. 124 — carta 110, headed 1740. *Die 9 Februarij 1740: «…baptizavit unum infantulum natum die 6 currentis à Petro Bilich, et Joanna ejus legitima uxore ambobus ex hac Parochia, cui positum fuit nomen Joannes. Patrini fuerunt Petrus Defranceschi, et Marina Stancovich.»* Pietro at the font in February 1740 — the man whose daughter Anna Euphemia was baptised in July 1738. 129 — carta 114, headed 1741, and it gives two. *Right leaf, 27 August 1741: at the baptism of Michael, son of Joannes [Su]lcich and Maria, the godmother is «Francisca uxor Matthæi Defranceschi». That settles a wife rather than raising one: Matteo's wife at Irena's baptism in 1752 is also Francesca, so it is one woman across eleven years and not the two this register keeps producing elsewhere.* *Left leaf, at the baptism of a Jacobus: «Patrini vero …anco, et Joanne Defranceschi».* A Joannes — Zuanne — of the name, at Svetvinčenat in 1741. *This is precisely the case the index could not reach: it runs B to P, so an Antonio or a Zuanne is invisible to it, and only a page-by-page read finds them. It is not Fiume's Joannes Baptista and is not offered as him — a Joannes is not a Joannes Baptista, and this parish reuses forenames freely enough that the match alone proves nothing.* *Read so far in the gap: 115–129, 161. Unread: 130–160, 162 — thirty-two frames.* Images 130 and 131 — one of them untangles the wives, and the other is a lookalike dissolved. 130 — carta 115, headed 1742. *Die 16 Februarij 1742, at the baptism of Matthia son of Gregorio Suficl(?) and Victoria: «Patrini ad sacrum fontem fuerunt, Joannes Solombat Paresin, et Jacoba uxor Petri Defranceschi.»* ⚠ That is the tangle coming apart. *This item recorded on 22 September that in ten months the register gives «uxor Jacobi de Franceschi» three different wives — Anzola, Agata, Jacoba — and filed it as a caution that a godparent line cannot be trusted about husbands. Here Jacoba is not Jacobo's wife at all: she is PIETRO's.* *Which agrees with the baptism already read on image 121 — Anna Euphemia, daughter of Pietro de Franceschi and Giacoma, 25 July 1738, Giacoma being the same name.* So one of the three «wives of Jacobo» was never his, and the doubt shrinks from three women to two. *(inf — the same forename in one small parish is not proof of the same woman, but Pietro × Giacoma is independently attested by his own child's baptism.)* 131 — carta 116, headed 1742: a nil, and a near miss. *«Patrini fuere Gregorij Ronsil ex Dabrova, et D.no Donato Del Ferri» — read at 3× and it is not this name.* That is the fifth lookalike this sweep has dissolved — after Dassanich, Blasan, Jurca uxor Antonij and Defranzieri — *and the first four were all found the same way, on the spread crop, and all four died at magnification.* *Read in the gap: 115–131, 161. Unread: 132–160, 162 — thirty frames. Strike rate so far: six of seventeen frames carry the name.* Images 132 and 133 — both nil, and the volume changes its hand. *132 is carta 117, headed 1742, October to December: Milovcon, Kerkovich, Doblanovich, Lanich, Solombat, Berchiavaz, Crosciovaz, Brotolich, Drobilich. *133 is carta 118, headed 1743, February to May: Bulcich, Argelich, Vehovich, Contossich, Milovan, Lepieri, Ferlan, Smeglian, Bergomo, Milcevich.* No form of the surname on either. A change worth noting for whoever reads on. *At carta 118 the clerk switches from the priest-first formula — «R.dus D.nus N. baptizavit unum infantulum … à Petro Bilich et Joanna» — to a child-first one: «Gregorius filius Simeonis Bulcich et Catherinæ ejus legitimæ uxoris».* The surname of interest now falls in a different place in the sentence, which matters when the page is being scanned rather than read, and is the kind of thing that turns a sweep into a set of false nils. *Read in the gap: 115–133, 161. Unread: 134–160, 162 — twenty-eight frames. Six of nineteen have carried the name.* 28 September 2026 — frames 134 and 135 re-read, and the tally above was wrong. First, the tally. *This item has been counting «unread: 134–160, 162 — twenty-eight frames». They are not unread. Frames 134 to 162 were read in earlier passes and already carry about twenty published people between them — Casparus 1743, Valentino 1745, Antonia 1745, Maria 1745, Martina Antonia 1746, Victoria 1746, Antonia 1747, the Vittorio twins of 1748, Euphemia 1749, Victoria 1749, Victoria 1750 and more.* What frames 115–133 were was gap-filling; what 134 onward is, is verification. *The running count was measuring the wrong thing, and said «twenty-eight frames to go» about a stretch that was already mined.* Second, what verification found on the very first frame of it. Image 134, carta 119 — the mother of Casparus is Pascasia, not Francisca, and the godfather is Francesco Saverio Profumo, chancellor of the parish, not «Dominicus Xaverii Bosponi». *Two words in one entry, both wrong, both published for five days.* It matters beyond one child: the 1743 line was load-bearing for the «two Jacobos» conclusion, and with it re-read, 1743 no longer contributes to that case at all — there is one wife that year, not two. The conclusion survives on the 1752–53 evidence and is flagged as resting there. Full reasoning on /corrections/. How it was settled, since the transcription alone settled nothing. *Three words of the same clerk, at one magnification, side by side:* his «Franciscus» on the facing leaf (carta 119v, 8 Oct 1743), his «Pascasia» nine images on (image 143, 31 Mar 1746), and the word in dispute. The disputed word is the 1746 word stroke for stroke and shares two letters with «Franciscus». *A hand is only legible against itself — reading a single word at 8× and thinking hard about it is what produced the error in the first place.* Third, two readings this session withdrew before publishing them. *On image 135 the two godmother lines were read at 3–5× as «Bascovicia uxor Jacobi Defranceschi», twice — which would have collapsed Pascasia and Marcario into one woman and demolished the two-men case outright.* At 7× with contrast they are the published «Pascasia» (24 November) and «Mar-/:cario» (1 December), and the withdrawal stands. *The date «23 9bris» read off the same crop was also wrong; it is 24, as published.* Three false readings in one session, all from the same cause — a faint page and a pattern freshly in mind from the frame before — and all three killed by magnification before they reached a reader. Image 135's left leaf (carta 119v, Aug–Oct 1743) is genuinely new and carries no form of the surname — Giulich, Benche, Marsani, Sloncovich, Jaricho, Varnier, Solombat, Cardin — *but it is the leaf that supplied both controls: Profumo the chancellor with his wife Veneria, and the clerk's «Franciscus».* A nil frame is not a wasted frame. The verification pass, and a way of choosing which frames deserve it. *Twenty-one published readings rest on frames 134 and later. Re-reading all of them at magnification is days of work, so the question was which ones to re-read first — and the archive turned out to have been keeping the answer in its own prose.* Seventeen of the twenty-one say «magnified» or «read letter by letter» in their notes. Four do not. *The four were re-read first. The result:* · Image 134 — Casparus 1743. Two errors (mother Francisca → Pascasia, godfather Bosponi → Profumo), plus the chaplain Zolonta → Zolonda. *This is the one whose note never claimed magnification.* · Image 161 — Irena di Matteo 1752. Correct. *«Francisca» is written with the clerk's tall crossed F and narrow minims; set beside «Pascasia» at 7× the two share not one letterform.* Matteo × Francisca and Jacobo × Pascasia are two different women, provably, in one image. · Image 148 — Dominico di Vittorio, twin 1748. Covered, not unchecked. *He and Lucia are named in a single act — «Lucia, et Dominicus filii gemini Victorij Defranceschi, et Dominica ejus legitima uxoris» — and Lucia's note says «Magnified». The twins cannot have been read at different magnifications. His page lacks the word only because it is the sibling's cross-reference.* *And two of the seventeen that do claim magnification were re-read as controls:* · Image 143 — Martina Antonia 1746. Correct. · Image 147 — Antonia 1747. Correct. So the claim was worth something: three of three that asserted magnification held, and the one that did not asserted nothing and was wrong twice. *That is a small sample and it is not a guarantee — but it is a defensible order to work in, and it is cheaper than re-reading twenty-one frames blind.* *Verification pass: 134, 135, 143, 147, 148, 161 examined. The four-item risk set is cleared. What remains is the seventeen that claim magnification, which are now the lower priority — and the marriage register, which has never been opened at all.* 28 September 2026 — the marriage film is found, and it was never a catalogue problem. *This item has carried «the marriage register — film number never recorded, only a dead `owc` waypoint» as a blocker for days. It is resolved, and not by asking anyone: every one of these films opens with its own target board, photographed at the Croatian State Archives in 1997, and the board states the register, the years and the item number in plain capitals.* Read off the boards themselves: | Film | Title of record | Years | Roll | |---|---|---|---| | 005497885 | Matična knjiga krštenih *(births)* | 1709–1764 | — | | 005497886 | Matična knjiga vjenčanih *(marriages)*, item 1 | 1581–1623 | 88 | | 005497887 | Matična knjiga umrlih *(deaths)* | 1859–1893 | 89 | *Both boards give operator Kekić Anita, project CRO 00009, filmed 17 and 19 June 1997.* And film 886 does not stop at 1623. *Frame 300 is a printed Austrian «Liber Copulatorum» ruled in columns — sponsi, sponsae, parents of both, witnesses — and dated 1887. So the marriage film runs from 1581 to at least 1887 across several items, and the 1762–1858 volume the catalogue lists sits somewhere between frames 50 and 300.* ⚠ What this means for the two Jacobos, and it is not good news. *The catalogue gives Svetvinčenat marriages as 1581–1589 / 1622–23 and 1762–1858. If that is right — and item 1's board agrees with its first half — then the marriages of the households this archive has just spent a week reconstructing do not survive. Jacobo × Pascasia, Matteo × Francisca, Pietro × Jacoba all married in the 1730s or earlier. There is no Svetvinčenat marriage register for those years to find them in. *(The gap is the catalogue's claim plus item 1's board; the frames between 50 and 300 have not been walked, so it is not yet proved from the film.)* What the marriage film can still do is the next generation. *The children baptised 1743–1760 married around 1765–1785, which falls squarely inside 1762–1858: Casparus b.1743, Antonia b.1747, Victoria b.1750, Irena b.1752, the Vittorio twins b.1748. A marriage act names both fathers, which is exactly the evidence that would separate the two Giacomos retrospectively — through their children rather than through themselves.* *Next on marriages: walk frames 50–300 of 005497886 for the item boards, find where 1762 begins, and read forward from there for the surname.* 28 September 2026 — the marriage volume opens, and the surname is on its first page. The 1762 volume begins at frame 43 of film 005497886 — *a flyleaf, then page «1», then «Adi 5 Luglio 1762 S. Vincenti».* There is no index, so this volume must be walked. *Frame 50 is 1765, frame 80 is 1778, frame 150 begins a new volume at 1815 — about 2.3 frames to the year, four marriages to the frame.* Frame 43, third entry — «Adi 6 Novembre 1762 S. Vincenti». *Domenico son of Sime Bulcich marries Gioanna daughter of the late Mattio Bulcich, and the witnesses are «alla presenza mia di And.a Venier q.m Nadal, di M.ro Gasparo de Franceschi, e di molte altre persone Testimonj».* «M.ro» is Maestro — a master craftsman, and this archive has not carried a trade for any Defranceschi of this parish before. *(doc for the appearance; the trade is a style of address, not a named craft, and the register does not say which.)* ⚠ Which Gasparo is not settled and is not guessed. *Three men of the name could be alive in Svetvinčenat in 1762: Gasparo husband of Maria, attested 1744–1750 and then about 45; Gasparo b. 1737, then 25; and Casparus di Jacobo b. 1743, then 19. «M.ro» suits an established man better than a youth of nineteen, which points at the first — but «suits better» is not evidence and the entry names no father, no wife and no age.* Frame 43's first entry is a gift of a different kind. *«Adi 5 Luglio 1762» — Giuseppe, son of the late Sig.r Apostolo Basilisco of Canfanaro and current Chancellor of this Castle, marries Antonia, daughter of the late Sig.r Francesco Saverio Profumi.* That is a fourth independent reading of the surname this session corrected from «Bosponi» — *in Italian, in a different hand, by a different clerk, nineteen years after the Latin baptism entries.* And it dates his death: *Francesco Saverio Profumo, who stood godfather to Casparus in 1743, was dead by July 1762, and his daughter married the man who took his office.* *Frame 43 read. The seam that matters — the marriages of the children baptised 1743–1760 — runs from here to about frame 108.* Marriage sweep, frames 43–48 — 1762 to November 1764, about forty-five marriages, one appearance. *Read at a scale that shows a whole opening in one view — both pages at 820×1980, which is enough to spot the surname even where it is not enough to read the entry. Anything that looks like it goes to 5× before it is written down, which is how frame 43's Gasparo was confirmed and how five lookalikes died earlier in this item.* | frames | carte | dates | marriages | the name | |---|---|---|---|---| | 43 | 1 | Jul–Nov 1762 | 3 | M.ro Gasparo de Franceschi, witness, 6 Nov | | 44 | 2 | Dec 1762 | 8 | — | | 45 | 3 | Nov 1762 – May 1763 | 8 | — | | 46 | 4 | Jun–Oct 1763 | 8 | — | | 47 | 5 | Nov 1763 – Feb 1764 | 7 | — | | 48 | 6 | Feb–Nov 1764 | 8 | — | The parish's recurring surnames in these years, for whoever reads on: *Percovich, Bulcich, Zadro, Venier, Mazzon, Justinaz, Angelich, Milcich, Stancovich, Jacovich, Chersan, Vidulich, Salambat, Xivolich, Rosar, Missan, Petrovich.* Not one Defranceschi marries in the first two and a half years of the volume — *which is itself worth knowing, because the parish has at least four households of the name baptising children in the 1740s and 1750s.* Every entry is signed by the same man, *«D. Simon Zadro Arciprete»*, who interrogates the couples himself and names the witnesses in his own presence. The formula is fixed and the surname always falls in the same two places — the couple's own names near the head, the witnesses at the foot — *which makes a nil frame quick and a hit unmistakable.* *Swept: 43–48. The seam runs on to about frame 108 for 1790, and to frame 149 for the whole volume.* Marriage sweep, frames 49–53 — and frame 53 pays for the whole volume. | frames | carte | dates | marriages | the name | |---|---|---|---|---| | 49 | 7 | Nov 1764 – Jan 1765 | 7 | — | | 50 | 8 | Feb–May 1765 | 7 | — | | 51 | 9 | May–Sep 1765 | 7 | — | | 52 | 10 | Sep–Nov 1765 | 9 | — | | 53 | 11 | Oct 1765 – Apr 1766 | 7 | two | Frame 53 carries a marriage and a widow, and between them they date two deaths. **22 October 1765 — *«Domenico Calluzzi q.m Pietro … con Pasqua Ved.a q.m Giacomo de Fran-/ceschi in 2di uoti»*.** *Pascasia, widow of Giacomo de Franceschi, remarrying.* The marriage book confirms a couple the baptism book built, it dates the death of a Jacobo for the first time in this archive, and it gives the two-men question a test by arithmetic: any living Giacomo de Franceschi acting after 22 October 1765 cannot be Pascasia's husband. **9 February 1766 — *«Con Elena figlia di q.m Mattio de Franceschi nativa di questo Castello»*, marrying Mattio Santalezza of the territory of Albona**, resident in the district twelve years. *This is the first marriage of a person of the name this archive has ever found*, she is almost certainly Helena b. 5 August 1742 at twenty-three, and her father Matteo is dead — *«q.m»* — which brackets his death to 1752 × 1766. A note on the hand. *Partway through frame 52 the register changes scribe: Arciprete Simon Zadro's loose Italian gives way to D. Mattio Adamich, Economo e Vicario, who writes a smaller, rounder, far more legible hand and signs «L'Economo Adamich per l'Arciprete Zadro». The formula changes with him — «hà contrato il matrimonio per uerba de presenti» replaces «contrasse il matrimonio», and the banns clause grows longer.* The surname still falls in the same two places, so the sweep method holds. *Swept: 43–53. Eleven frames, about eighty marriages, three appearances of the name.* Marriage sweep, frames 54–56 — and a patronymic settles what a style of address could not. | frames | carte | dates | marriages | the name | |---|---|---|---|---| | 54 | 12 | May–Jul 1766 | 9 | D.no Gasparo de Franceschi, witness, 9 Jul | | 55 | 13 | Aug 1766 – Jun 1767 | 11 | Gaspare de Franceschi q.m Ant.o, witness, 13 Aug | | 56 | 14 | Jul–Nov 1767 | 10 | — | «q.m Ant.o ex hoc Castro» — son of the late Antonio, of this castle. *Three Gasparos were in play this morning when the 1762 witness was filed as unassigned. Two of them are now excluded outright: the twin of 1737 and Casparus of 1743 are both sons of Jacobo, named as such in their own baptisms.* What a Maestro-versus-Domino argument could never have decided, one patronymic decided in a line. It also dates two things. *Antonio, the witness's father, is dead by 13 August 1766. And if the witness is Gasparo × Maria — the only surviving candidate — then he is alive that day and dead by 30 March 1773, when «Maria relicta q.m Gasparis de Franceschi» remarries.* ⚠ And a caution this item should keep. *He is «M.ro» in 1762 and «D.no» in 1766 — and it means nothing, because the scribe changed in between. D. Mattio Adamich styles almost everyone «D.no». Reading social rank off an abbreviation is the same error as reading a surname off a spread crop, and this item has now made a version of that mistake twice.* *Swept: 43–56. Fourteen frames, about a hundred marriages, five appearances of the name — one marriage, one widow remarrying, three witnessings.* Marriage sweep, frames 57–64 — and a correction this item owes itself. ⚠ First the correction. This item said the marriage register had never been opened. That was wrong. *What was missing was the film number in this worklist — not the register. The archive already held Giacomo de Franceschi (m. 1772), read from frame 63; Giacomo de Franceschi, d. before 1771, from frame 62; and six 1773 witnessings by Antonio de Franceschi with his son Vittorio, from frame 64.* Three of the eight frames in this batch were already published. *The sweep confirmed all three at magnification and changed none of them, which is worth something — but it is verification, not discovery, and this item had been calling it discovery.* | frames | dates | marriages | the name | |---|---|---|---| | 57–60 | Nov 1767 – Dec 1770 | ~34 | — | | 61 | Jun 1771 | 8 | NEW — Dominicus × Victoria Trecento, witness Victorio | | 62 | Jul–Nov 1771 | 11 | Jacobo q. Jacobi, ×2 — *23 Nov known, 25 Nov new* | | 63 | Jan–Jul 1772 | 9 | Giacobus filius Giacobi × Nicolina — already published | | 64 | Oct 1772 – Feb 1773 | 12 | Antonio ×4, Victorio filio Antonij — already published | The one genuinely new act is the best of them. 10 June 1771 — *«Dominicus de Franceschi … junctus est cum Victoria Trecento … Testibus Marco […] ac Victorio de Franceschi»*. A Defranceschi marrying with a Defranceschi standing witness, which this archive has not had before. *Read as Dominico the twin of 1748 at twenty-three with his father Vittorio beside him — and flagged inf, because two other Dominicos and two other Vittorios are alive and the act names no father.* And a distinction the sweep forced. *«Gaspare de Franceschi q.m Ant.o» in August 1766 against a living Antonio witnessing six times in 1773: two Antonios, and the archive now carries both as separate pages with the reason stated on each.* *Swept: 43–64. Twenty-two frames, about 170 marriages, twelve appearances of the name — three marriages, one widow remarrying, eight witnessings.* 28 September 2026 — the sweep stops at frame 64, and it stops on purpose. FamilySearch served a «Pardon Our Interruption» page to the frame-lookup endpoint after about seventy rapid calls. *It is a bot check.* This archive does not work around bot checks, so the automated sweep ends here rather than being retried, throttled or disguised. Nothing is broken. *David's session is intact and the ordinary film viewer loads normally — the limit is on hammering `das/v2`, not on the account. The remedy is patience, not cleverness: resume later and more slowly.* The waypoint for the marriage film, captured from the viewer while checking, so the next session need not rediscover it: > `https://www.familysearch.org/search/film/005497886` > waypoint `9R28-RMN:391644801,392404501,392405401` · collection `cc=2040054` Where to pick up. *Swept 43–64 (Jul 1762 – Feb 1773). Next: frame 65.* *The seam runs to about frame 108 for 1790 and frame 149 for the whole volume — call it forty-four frames to the end of the useful stretch.* And a rate to plan with. *Twenty-two frames took roughly seventy endpoint calls, three per frame: one apid lookup, one signed-URL fetch, one image download. A slower cadence is the price of the route, and the route is still far cheaper than the viewer.* 28 September 2026 — the bot check cleared, the sweep resumed slower, and frames 65–71 gave a daughter nobody had. *Resumed at roughly a third of the earlier rate — one endpoint call every 1.3 seconds instead of as fast as the browser would go. No further interruption.* | frames | dates | the name | |---|---|---| | 65 | Feb–Nov 1773 | Maria's remarriage + Antonio ×3 — all already published, all confirmed | | 66 | Nov 1773 – Jan 1774 | NEW — Fusca's marriage · Jacobo ×1 · Antonio ×3 | | 67 | Nov 1773 – Feb 1774 | Antonio ×4, twice styled «Campanaro» | | 68 | May–Aug 1774 | Antonio ×1 | | 69 | Oct 1774 – Feb 1775 | — | | 70 | Feb–Jun 1775 | Antonio ×4, once styled «Capanaro» | | 71 | Jun–Dec 1775 | — | The find is Fusca de Franceschi, 17 November 1773 — *«Marc'Antonius Jacomini filius Andreæ, Parenzensis, et Fusca filia q. Mathiæ de Franceschi, Parochiana hujus Ecclesiæ»*. A third daughter for Matteo and Francisca, beside Helena and Irena — *and what ties her to them is the witness: «Mathias Santalezza», the surname Helena married into in 1766. A brother-in-law at the altar.* Her baptism has not been found, and no birth year is printed for her. Two corrections to this archive's own pages, both upward. *Antonio de Franceschi was recorded as «named six times in ten months of 1773». He runs to at least April 1775 and is now on a dozen entries.* *And Maria's 30 March 1773 remarriage, known from an index, is now read at source — «Maria v.da q.m Gasparis de Franceschi».* ⚠ A trade offered and refused. *Three entries write «Campanaro» — bell-ringer — directly after Antonio's surname. It would explain his whole career as a witness, and the archive is not taking it, because «Zvanne Sain campanaro» appears six times in the same two years. Either the collegiate church had two, or the office moved, or the word is doing something else. Left open — this session wrote a method note against reading rank off an abbreviation, and then nearly did it again four hours later.* *Swept: 43–71. Twenty-nine frames, about 230 marriages, twenty-six appearances of the name.* Marriage sweep, frames 72–78 — Oct 1775 to July 1777, and two questions close. | frames | dates | the name | |---|---|---| | 72 | Oct 1775 | Antonio ×2 — and «del Campanaro Antonio De Franceschi» | | 73–75 | Jan–Dec 1776 | — *(74 and 75 are the same opening, re-shot)* | | 76 | Nov 1776 | Antonio, witness | | 77 | Jan–Feb 1777 | — | | 78 | May–Jul 1777 | — for the surname, but see below | 1 · The bell-ringer, settled by word order. *This item left it open this morning because «Campanaro» trailed Antonio's name and might have attached elsewhere. Frame 72 puts it in front: «e del Campanaro Antonio De Franceschi», where «del Sig.r» would stand.* Five entries now, and he was a bell-ringer — which explains his whole career as a witness: *he was at the church anyway.* ⚠ And so was Zvanne Sain, who carries the same title a dozen times across the same years. Two at once — *and the register says why without meaning to: it marries people at S. Vincenzo, S. Rocco, S. Germano and S. Maria Maddalena. A parish with four churches has more than one bell. (inf.)* 2 · Elena's death, bracketed from her widower's second wedding. *26 May 1777: «Ved.o Mattio Santaleza q.m Micho ha contrato matrimonio … con Maria figlia del q.m Ant.o Bolich».* «Ved.o» is a widower, and he is the man Elena married in 1766. So she died between 1766 and 1777, at thirty-four or younger. *No year is printed: the bracket is eleven years wide and Svetvinčenat's deaths before 1859 are on no film this archive can reach.* *Swept: 43–78. Thirty-six frames, about 290 marriages, twenty-nine appearances of the name.* 28 Sept 2026 — marriage seam read to frame 85. *Frames 79–85: four findings, three nils named.* Antonia di q.m Giacomo marries a Carnian (7 Jan 1779); Domenico remarries as «Ved.o p.mi voti» six days later, which kills Victoria Trecento 1771×1779; Fosca Placich is a second Fosca the archive nearly conflated; Antonio still witnessing 22 Nov 1779. *All four are in the Svetvinčenat line, not only here.* Next: frame 86 onward — the seam runs to about frame 108 for 1790 and 149 for the volume. Read to frame 91, the end of 1782. *Two findings — Gregorio Defranceschi q.m Ant.o (11 Nov 1780) and «Vittorio Franceschi», the «De» dropped by a new archpriest (29 Apr 1782) — plus four named nils.* The bell-rope has passed to the Bratulich. *Next: frame 92 onward; the volume runs to about frame 149.* Read to frame 93 (1783). *⚠ Frame 93 overturned this session's own reading of frame 86: «Capo Antonio de Franceschi», twice, alive, where the morning had published «q.m Ant.o», dead. Correction recorded and removed from every file.* The same frame marries Vittorio to Eufemia Bergamo at Parenzo, names Vittorio's father in a document for the first time, and puts evidence under an empty stub the family tree had carried for years. *Next: frame 94 onward.* ⚠ 28 September 2026 — paused, and not by choice. *The in-app browser's FamilySearch session signed out mid-sweep: frame 93, read twenty minutes earlier, now returns `403 Access to artifact denied`, and so does frame 94. This is David's to restore — sessions do not enter credentials. The sweep resumes at frame 94; frames 79–93 are read, written up and pushed.* Resumed 29 September *(David restored the FamilySearch session)*. Read to frame 96 (mid-1784). *Two findings: Zuanne figlio del q. Giacomo de Franceschi, the first son of Jacobo's house the register names, and Antonia «nata de Franceschi» dead 1779×1784, from her Carnian widower's remarriage.* The Carnian count off this film stands at five in ten years. *Next: frame 97 onward.* 29 September — frames 80 and 97 read; the range is now contiguous 79–97. *Frame 80 closed a gap the original sweep had left and only surfaced when page ranges were written up for Record Atlas — carta 37, June–August 1778, nil. Frame 97, carta 54, nil; 1784 closes at 14 marriages.* Next: frame 98 onward; the volume runs to about 149. ⚠ 30 September 2026 — paused again at frame 98, and again not by choice. *The in-app browser's FamilySearch session is signed out: the frame route returns `{"error":"Unauthorized","message":"Unauthorized (anonymous session)","status":401}` for dgs:005497886_00098.* This is David's to restore — sessions do not enter credentials. *Frames 79–97 are contiguous, read, written up and pushed; the sweep resumes at frame 98 and the volume runs to about 149.* This is the second sign-out mid-sweep on this film, so it is worth saying plainly: the useful unit of work here is a short run of frames written up and pushed before the session can lapse, which is what the last two sittings did. 30 September — David restored the session; frame 98 read, and it is the best single entry this film has given. *Carta 55, 1785.* «Antonio q. Leonardo de Franceschi da Gollogorizza Diocesi di Pedena» marries «Maria figlia q. Giacomo Corva da Muina Diocesi d'Udine», 14 March 1785. *That is the Muina household's missing marriage — the chain had inferred «about 1785» off a grandson's birth year and the year is right — it names Maria's father for the first time, it pushes Leonardo's death back before 1785, and it styles a man this archive has always called a farmer of Muina as being of Gologorica, the origin parish. The identification is inf and labelled so; the test is Osvaldo's 1788 baptism at Muina.* Next: frame 99 onward; the volume runs to about 149. Read to frame 100 (carta 57, 1786). *Frames 99–100: fourteen marriages, all named, nil for the name as party, parent or witness — and the book totals the year itself: «Fine dell'Anno 1785 Matrimonii N. 16».* Frames 79–100 are now contiguous. *Next: frame 101 onward; the volume runs to about 149.* Read to frame 101 (carta 58, into 1787). *Six more marriages, all named, nil for the name.* And the volume proved the reading: it closes 1786 with «Matrimonii al Numero 10», and this sweep read exactly ten 1786 marriages across frames 99–101 — *one on 99, eight on 100, one on 101.* The parish's own count and this archive's agree, so no entry of that year was skipped. *Frames 79–101 contiguous; next frame 102, the volume runs to about 149.* Read to frame 102 (carta 59, 1787). *Seven marriages, all named, nil for the name.* ⚠ And the registrar changes mid-page: from 18 February 1787 the entries are signed «Augustinus de Ceneda Can. et Oeconomus registravit», not D. Paolo Cossaich — *a third hand in this volume.* The last change of hand, in 1782, changed the family's surname from «Defranceschi» to «Franceschi» and is why an indexed search loses them mid-volume; the frames from here should be read expecting a third form, not scanned for one. *Frames 79–102 contiguous; next 103, the volume runs to about 149.* Read to frame 103 (carta 60, into 1788) — and it is a hit. 16 January 1788: «Maria figlia del S.r Antonio Defranceschi» marries Zuanne Contossich q.m Pietro, witnessed by «Domenico Defranceschi». *Two of the name in one entry.* ⚠ And the «De» is back. *Frame 102 flagged a new hand from 18 February 1787; here is what it did — D. Giovanni Venica performs and D. Agostino de Caneva registers, and the surname is written «Defranceschi» in full again after seven years of «Franceschi».* The spelling tracks the scribe, not the family, and has now been watched moving both ways — which is the single most useful thing this volume has taught about searching it. *Maria's father is styled «Signor»; that he is the Antonio of the 1780 exemption fits parish, period and honorific and is recorded as inf, not fact. Both written into the Svetvinčenat readings.* Frames 79–103 contiguous; next 104. Read to frame 104 (carta 61, 1788–1790). *Eleven marriages, all named, nil for the name.* The officiant now signs «Can.co ed Arciprete», and «Sig. Can.co Agostin Decaneva» appears as a witness — a sixth instance confirming the «de Caneva» correction. *And the bell-rope moves twice more: Gionello 1785–86, Civitico 1787–90, written into the readings.* Frames 79–104 contiguous; next 105, the volume runs to about 149. Read to frame 105 (carta 62, into March 1791). *Eleven marriages, all named, nil for the name.* ⚠ One bride is «della Parochia di Carbune Austriaca» — Krbune, in the Austrian county of Pazin, where Venetian Svetvinčenat's catchment had not been seen to reach before, *and which sits in the same cluster of villages as Gologorica and Gračišće.* No connection claimed — recorded because this archive tracks that border. *Frames 79–105 contiguous; next 106, the volume runs to about 149.* ⚠ 30 September — THE MARRIAGE REGISTER ENDS AT FRAME 106, and this changes what «the volume runs to about 149» means. *The last act is 7 March 1791; then a Latin note records the book produced at the bishop's second general visitation of 28 May 1791, inspected and returned, and the rest of the leaf is struck through.* Frames 107 and 108 are LOOSE SLIPS bound in afterwards — twenty-six marriages, June 1791 to November 1792, one line each, no witnesses or publications. All read. And one is ours: «Addì 30 [X]bre 1791 — … con Maria relita q.m Contossich NATA DEFRANCESCHI». *That is the woman who married Zuanne Contossich on frame 103 in January 1788, widowed and remarrying inside four years.* (inf, strongly held.) Told in the readings. What remains of the film is no longer this seam. *Frames 79–108 are contiguous and the marriages are finished to November 1792. Frames 109 onward are unexamined and are not assumed to be marriages — the next sitting should establish what series they are before reading them as one.* Frame 109 is a SECOND EXPOSURE of frame 108's slips, with the «BLEED THROUGH» backing card moved — *so each exposure makes a different part legible.* Two entries unreadable on 108 are plain on 109 (Iure Mazzan × Eufemia Smosina, 30 Sept 1792; Matte Paicovich × Oliva Petercich, 26 Oct 1792), and the «Maria relita q.m Contossich nata Defranceschi» entry appears on both — the hit is confirmed on two independent photographs. ⚠ Caution recorded: where a backing card is in use the leaf is thin enough for the reverse to read through, so anything faint on these slips may be text from the other side. *Frames 79–109 now accounted for.* Frame 110 — the slips run to May 1794, and give Jacobo a daughter. «Addì 19 Maggio 1794 — Domenico Martincich incontrò matrimonio con Pasqua figlia del q.m Giacomo Defranceschi». *That is a third named child of that house, with Antonia (1779) and Zuanne (1784).* ⚠ And the archive already holds a Pasqua who was the WIDOW of a q.m Giacomo in 1765 — *a daughter named for her mother is the obvious reading and is recorded as inf, against the archive's own finding that there were at least two men called Jacobo here.* Told in the readings. *Fourteen marriages on the frame; thirteen nil and named. Frames 79–110 accounted for.* Frame 111 — slips to October 1795, fifteen marriages, nil. *One bride is «Maria figlia del q. Giacomo…», the same shape as the Pasqua entry, so the surname was magnified before the frame was called nil: it reads Godichia.* And the catchment reaches Pisino — the district town of Austrian Istria, and the district Gologorica and Gračišće sit in. *Frames 79–111 accounted for.* Frame 112 — slips to April 1797, sixteen marriages, nil. *Two things kept:* the scribe hedges a surname in his own hand — «Gherso Doblanovich, ò forsi Bullesich», «or perhaps Bullesich» — *a clerk conceding he does not know which of two houses a man belongs to, which is the same problem this archive meets from the other end;* and two households exchanging spouses in a single afternoon, 24 April 1797. *Lupoglav makes a fourth Austrian-Istrian parish in this stretch. Frames 79–112 accounted for.* Frame 113 — slips to November 1798, sixteen marriages, nil. *One entry kept for the archive rather than for this family:* «Il Sig.r Giuseppe Fackinetti incontrò matrimonio con la Sig.ra Giuseppina Lagadopoli da Spalatro, ed esso da Montagnana» — *a Greek-surnamed bride of Split marrying a Facchinetti at Svetvinčenat in January 1798. Facchinetti is a name this sweep already knows from frames 102–103. Not ours, no connection claimed.* Frames 79–113 accounted for. Frame 114 — slips to May 1802, sixteen marriages, nil. *⚠ The slips are not strictly chronological: a header «Addì 24 Xbre 1800» is struck through and the entry beneath it is dated 23 February 1801 — the keeper writing up out of order and correcting himself. Worth knowing before anyone treats these slips as a series.* *Also: a physician's son, «Il Sig.r Marcello Manari figlio dell'Ill.mo Sig. D.r Girolamo medico fisico», marrying a lady of Lindar; and Mune — a fifth and sixth Austrian-side parish after Carbune, Pisino and Lupoglav.* Frames 79–114 accounted for. ⚠ 30 September — FRAME 115 FORCES A CORRECTION TO THIS ITEM'S OWN CLAIMS. *Frame 115 is frame 114's slips photographed again. Fifteen of sixteen entries match. One does not: where 114 shows the Manari marriage, 115 shows «Addì 24 Xbre 1799 — Zuane Bercan q. Giure … con Elena relita q. Tomaso Gaugnelin della Parrochia di Valle», an entry 114 concealed.* And on the right-hand slip the mechanism is visible in the photograph: a smaller sheet lies on top of a larger one, edge and shadow plain, carrying a note of witnesses over the entry beneath. So the slips are a STACK, not a set of sheets — and the same thing explains frames 108 and 109, which this item read as a backing card being moved. It was the pile being shifted. Every slip row is re-filed `walked: false`. *«Walked» means every entry read, and that cannot be claimed of a layered pile photographed once.* «Walked» now stands only for the bound register, frames 79–106, where the pages are sewn, wholly visible, and the parish's own year-totals for 1785 and 1786 were checked against the count. The four hits are unaffected — each was read off a clearly visible entry, and the Defranceschi widow of 1791 appears on two exposures. What is weakened is the nils: the slip frames say *nothing found in what could be seen*, not *nothing there*. *Whoever finishes this film should obtain every exposure of each slip opening and compare them.*

**Branko Fučić's *Glagoljski natpisi* (JAZU, Zagreb 1982) is the corpus of Croatian Glagolitic inscriptions** — the reference work, not a byway. It contains this: *«Natpis je vjerojatno registriran u Gologorici, gdje su Defranceschi…»* — the inscription was probably recorded at Gologorica, where the Defranceschi… Gologorica is one of this archive's own origin places — the Gologorica and Gračišće line, whose registers open in 1644. A Glagolitic inscription connected to the name, at that village, in the standard scholarly corpus, and there is not one line about it on this site. Why it could matter more than a register entry. Glagolitic is the Croatian liturgical script, and an inscription is stone or a book-margin note — it is older than any parish register in this archive and it is in the other language. A family that appears in Italian on Venetian paper and in Glagolitic on an Istrian wall is the whole argument of the name page in one object. Most of the sentence has since been recovered, by walking the full-text index phrase by phrase — each search re-centres the snippet, so the sentence can be read a few words at a time out of a book whose pages are closed for copyright: > *«Riječ »Pomjane« (ime istarskog sela) ne može se čitati u posljednjem retku. Natpis je vjerojatno registriran u Gologorici, gdje su Defranceschi imali posjed i …»* — *«The word »Pomjane« (the name of an Istrian village) cannot be read in the last line. The inscription was probably registered at Gologorica, where the Defranceschi had an estate and …»* Two things fall out of that, and the second is the bigger. Pomjane is a village name this archive has never held — it is the word Fučić could not read on the stone. And «imali posjed» is not a mention, it is a landholding: Fučić places the family as proprietors at Gologorica, and dates the inscription by that fact rather than the other way round. What is still needed is the last clause and the entry's apparatus — the inscription's catalogue number, its date, its reading and where the stone or page now is. The walk stops at *«posjed i»*; the rest is in the printed book. **NSK, *Glagoljski natpisi*, Fučić, JAZU 1982** — a reading-room hour, or a reproduction order from `digitalna.nsk.hr`. *Walked 20 September 2026.* 20 Sept — dated, and deflated. Gologorica's Glagolitic record: an inscription on a discarded holy-water vessel base of 1549 at the All Saints chapel; graffiti of the 15th–16th century on the north wall of the church of the Blessed Virgin Mary *kod lokve*; and the 1595 inscription of the priest Juraj Kaligarić in the north chapel of SS Peter and Paul. But nothing found says the family is named in any of them. The fragment that opened this item reads as though it did; the likelier completion is *«…where the Defranceschi had their house»* — the family as the place, not the text. Do not claim a Glagolitic inscription naming the name until Fučić's own entry is read. What it gives instead is worth more. Gologorica was writing Glagolitic from at least 1549, and this family arrived into it and in 1711 cut arms, a Latin inscription and a relief of Christ over a door the encyclopaedia calls *«a modest palace of village landowners»*. That is their social position, in one sentence, on the house itself.

Reading the marriage film for a Defranceschi produced a Kovačina instead. Crikvenica marriages 1895, entry 28, 28 November: «Petar Kovačina, stolar» — a joiner — marries «Marija Car», at Crikvenica house 119. His father is another Petar Kovačina. Uršula Kovačina married Anton Rudolf Defranceschi and is David's great-grandmother; she was born at Crikvenica about 1890–95 and died at Belgrade in 1975. Until now her family existed in this archive only as a surname on a tree. Here is a Kovačina household in a register, with a trade and a house number. What to do, and it is already half-ordered: the Crikvenica birth register 1890–1896 — wanted on the errands for the modern households anyway — would show whether Uršula is a daughter of this house, and would give her parents outright. House 119 is the thread to pull. *inf — a Kovačina at Crikvenica in 1895 is very likely her kin; which kin is exactly what is not yet known.* --- Done, 20 September 2026 — and it closed a question this archive had deliberately left open. The Crikvenica marriage of 28 November 1895 gives the groom's parents in full: «Petar Kovačina, k. r. financ. nadstražar, i Uršula rodj. Stojčić» — the very two people the 1904 death entry names. Petar Kovačina the joiner is the son of Petar Kovačina the financial guard, not a brother and not the same man under an earlier trade. Three generations of house 119 now stand: the guard and Uršula née Stojčić → the joiner and Marija Car (m. 1895, by leave of the Royal Hungarian ministry) → Uršula, who married Anton Rudolf. What is still inference: that Anton Rudolf's wife is the joiner's daughter. Next: Crikvenica births 1896–1902 for a Uršula Kovačina at house 119.

Found on 20 September in the Crikvenica marriages, 1899 entry 12: *«Josip Kalanj, zidar, iz Ledenica»*, of Ledenice house 37, son of Josip Kalanj and Rosalija née Perković, marrying Marija Poštrenčić, a seamstress. Those are Anna Kalanj's parents, from her own Ledenice baptism of 1864 — so this is her brother, and Anton Rudolf's maternal uncle. It is the first time the bride's side of the Klenovica marriage has been in a register at all, and it says what they did: masons. Three things follow, and all are in Ledenice: · the Ledenice births, about 1860–1875, should hold Anna and her brothers in one household — the whole sibling set this archive has never had; · the Ledenice marriages after 1882 are the volume that would hold Anna's own marriage to Josip Defranceschi, and they are not on the film this archive has been reading — they must be asked for from the Matični ured; · Luka Kalanj, son of Martin, mason, stood witness, and Ivan Kalanj married in the same register three weeks earlier to *different* parents. There is more than one Kalanj household, and telling them apart is what the Ledenice births would do. *This is the film paying for itself in a way that was not the plan: it does not hold the Defranceschi marriage, but it has handed over the bride's family.* --- Done, 20 September 2026 — and it answered more than it asked. Anna Kalanj is the third of eight children of Josip Kalanj and Rosalija née Perković: Thomas 1858 · Martinus 1861 · ANNA 1864 · Lucia 1866 · Franciscus 1868 · Josephus 1871 · Maria 1874 · Joannes 1877. The FamilySearch index located the pages; each entry was then read on the register image. Josephus, born 5 May 1871, is the «Josip Kalanj, zidar» who married at Crikvenica in 1899 — so the brother found from the marriage and the brother found from the baptisms are the same man, confirmed from both ends. And the house is the find. The clerk writes it as «Ledenice in Klenovica N° 22» (1861), «Rljinovica N° 22» (1864), «Ledenice N° 22 in Rljenovice» (1866) and «Povile N° 22» (1871, 1877). Anton Rudolf was born at «Klenovica kbr. 22» in 1890 — the same house. *See item 76.*

Bribir, Vjenčani 1858–1900 (waypoint `9R28-L2Q:391644801,391644802,391654901`) covers the whole window in which the marriage of Josip Defranceschi × Anna Kalanj must fall, and this archive's earlier shelf survey wrongly recorded Bribir's marriages as stopping in 1858. It is now the only filmed Vinodol marriage register left unread. Crikvenica 1859–1908 is read end to end and clean; Sv. Jakov-Šiljevica 1859–1910 is read across 1882–1891 and clean; Ledenice stops at 1882 and Novi Vinodolski at 1859. *The method is settled: the left page of these Austrian tabular registers carries both spouses, their origin and their domicile, so one crop a page finds the surname.* --- Done, 20 September 2026. Bribir is read and clean. 1883–1890 complete — about four hundred marriages — and no Defranceschi in any of them. Year totals off the priest's own numbering: 1883: 57 · 1884: 45 · 1885: 64 · 1886: 41 · 1887: 45 · 1888: 25 · 1889: 22 · 1890: 24. A catalogue trap worth knowing: the waypoint for *Vjenčani 1858–1900* returns 597 images, because Bribir's births, marriages and deaths share one reel. The marriages sit around images 108–150; everything past about 250 is the death register. With this, every filmed Vinodol marriage register covering 1883–1889 has been read and every one is negative — Crikvenica 1859–1908, Sv. Jakov-Šiljevica 1859–1910, and now Bribir. Ledenice stops at 1882 and Novi Vinodolski at 1859. *There is nothing left on film. What remains is the letter to Rijeka — item 141.*

This is now the likeliest home of the marriage, and it cannot be read from a screen. Anton Rudolf's baptism of 20 January 1890 is in a Klenovica register catalogued as «Matične knjige, Ledenice / Klenovica», and its remarks column says the parents were at Klenovica only because they were staying with Ana's parents — *«kod roditelja žene Ane»* — at house 22, where the godfather Jakov Kalanj also lived. Klenovica is the bride's family's village. Marriages are normally celebrated in the bride's parish. Neither book is on FamilySearch. Klenovica does not exist as a parish in the FamilySearch tree at all; Ledenice's marriage film stops at 1882. So the two registers most likely to hold this marriage — Klenovica's own marriage book and Ledenice's marriages after 1882 — have to be asked for. Where to ask: the Državni arhiv u Rijeci holds the Vinodol parish books (Crikvenica's own volume is theirs: *Povijesni arhiv Rijeka 275 (K4), inv. 110*), and the Matični ured for Novi Vinodolski holds what the archive has not taken in. Ask for the marriage register of Klenovica and of Ledenice covering 1883–1890, and for any entry for Josip Defranceschi and Ana Kalanj in either. *This is David's letter to send, not a film to read.* 20 Sept 2026 — a second thing to ask for in the same letter. The Crikvenica births for 1897–1902 are wanted too, for Uršula Kovačina, daughter of Petar Kovačina *stolar* and Marija Car of house 119 — Anton Rudolf's wife. The whole of filmed 1896 has now been read entry by entry and she is not in it, the FamilySearch index holds no Uršula Kovačina birth anywhere in Croatia, and the parish's birth register is not filmed past 1896. Her parents married in November 1895 and a sister was born about March 1897, so she falls squarely in the unfilmed years. Until that register is read, the line from the financial guard's son to Anton Rudolf's wife is inference and nothing more.

This is the join that would matter most, and it is one register away. The index sweep of 20 September turned up a four-generation chain at Rijeka: Giuseppe Defranceschi × Francesca → Valentino b. 1772, who fathers twenty-one indexed children on Ursula between 1794 and 1805 → Franciscus b. 1797, who fathers four more to 1836. The archive's own Fiume household is Valentino the Carnian, citizen of 1739, fifteen children 1737–1757. A Giuseppe whose son is christened Valentino about 1772, in the same town, is what a grandson looks like — but there is no Giuseppe among the fifteen. Why that is not fatal. The fifteen were fourteen until 20 September, when Jacobus Vincentius was found in the index and then read on the page. The 6 September reading covered the dates it was given, not the whole book. What settles it. The Fiume St Vitus baptisms for 1758–1775, on film 005497925 — the same film already anchored for this archive, where image 293 is 21 July 1757 and the volume runs on. A Giuseppe born to Valentino and Helena after 1757 would close the gap; his absence over eighteen years would open it. Either way it is a bounded read of one film at known frames. If it joins, it joins a lot. The Rijeka family of 1794–1805 is twenty-one children this archive has never attached to anything, and they would hang off the Carnian household directly. Narrowed the same day, and the window is now five years wide. The far end is dated. The index carries «Valentinum Josephum Gregorium Defranceschi, f. Josephi, m. Francæ, 11/12 March 1776, Vitipolis» — so Giuseppe × Franca were baptising at Fiume in 1776, and their son is the Valentino who fathers the twenty-one. Which dates Giuseppe himself. A man with a son born in 1776 was born by about 1750 — inside Valentino the Carnian's childbearing window, not after it. So the question is not «is there a sixteenth child after 1757» but «is there one in the gaps». And the fifteen have gaps. They fall in 1737, 1739, 1741, 1742×3, 1745, 1751, 1752, 1753, 1754, 1755 and 1757×3. The holes are 1743–44, 1746–50 and 1756 — and 1746–1750 is a five-year silence in a household that otherwise produces a child every year or two. That is where a Giuseppe would be. The read, precisely. Film 005497925. Ignatius was found at image 126 = 29 July 1745 and Vitus at image 228 = 18 June 1751, so 1746–1750 lies between them — roughly 95 frames, both pages each. *⚠ The frame arithmetic across that span is not safe*: images 126 and 228 sit under different waypoints (`9R2X-ZNT…714201` and `9R2X-C62…714501`), and image 203 of the first shows a year in the 1780s, so the two are not one continuous sequence. Anchor by reading, not by interpolating across the join. The index cannot do it. A sweep of 2,251 rows finds no Giuseppe with a Valentin- father anywhere, and four of the fifteen children were already known to be in no index at all. Absence in the index is not absence in the book — this item exists because that has already been proved twice on this film. Scoped properly, and the earlier warning on this item was wrong. This item said the two ends of the read sat under different waypoints and that image 203 of the first showed a year in the 1780s, so the frames could not be interpolated across. That was a misreading of image 203. Probing the volume directly shows it is continuous: | film image | date | |---|---| | 126 | 29 July 1745 — Ignatius | | 135 | 10–11 July 1746 | | 153 | 7–9 September 1748 | | 171 | marriages, 1738 — the baptism run has ended | So volume one runs at about 8.3 frames to the year, and its baptisms stop before image 171, where a marriage register begins on the same reel. The window is images 127–170 — forty-four frames, not ninety-five, and there is no unsafe join inside it. The index will not do it. There are no indexed Defranceschi baptisms at Fiume at all between 1746 and 1750 — but that discriminates nothing, because three of the children already known from this stretch (Ignatius 1745, Vitus 1751, Rosalia 1755) are in no index either. Silence in the index is this film's normal state for this family. Ready to run: forty-four frames, both pages, looking for *«Valentini»* in the father's slot. The arks are in `scratchpad/fiume/arks.lst`, lines 127–170. 20 Sept, later — one page beat the forty-four. Giuseppe × Francesca have four children indexed at Fiume (1772, 1774, 1776, 1778). The eldest son's entry, 23 November 1772, reads *«Valentinus Franciscus Xaverius, filius legitimus DD. Josephi, et Franciscæ jugalium Defranceschi, heri natus, baptizavit C.us Lumaga, Levantibus D.no Francisco Tomassich et D.na Helena Defranceschi»*. Valentino the Carnian's wife was Helena, and in 1772 she would be in her mid-fifties. A Helena Defranceschi at the font for Giuseppe's first son is a grandmother. The celebrant, Canonicus Lumaga, is the same name as the canon who baptised Valentino's own son Aloysius Rochus in 1754. *Still inf — another Helena Defranceschi at Fiume is possible.* The 1746–1750 read (images 127–170) would settle it outright and remains the way to close this item. 20 Sept, later still — the scoping above is wrong and the volumes are now mapped properly. Each waypoint on this reel is a bound volume holding births and marriages together, with different date ranges: `9R2X-ZNT` = births 1734–1749 + marriages 1734–1753; `9R2X-C62` = births 1749–1769 + marriages 1753–1776. So *«forty-four frames, images 127–170»* was wrong twice over — volume one's births stop at 1749, and images 171+ are marriages of 1738. Image 203 is 1753, not the 1780s; that misreading has now been made twice and is retired. Baptisms read so far: volume 1 images 127–133, both pages, August 1745 to May 1746. No Defranceschi as father. Incidentally Helena Defranceschi stands godmother four times in those seven frames, and a Catharina Defranceschi once — who cannot be Josepha Catharina b. 1737, aged eight. *A Defranceschi woman not yet in this archive.* Marriages read: volume 2 images 286, 291, 292, 293 — March 1769 to December 1771. No Giuseppe. But 293R gives Joannes Baptista Defranceschi, widower, marrying Catharina de Benzoni on 9 December 1771. Next, and cheapest first: volume 2 images 294–304 (marriages 1772–1776) for Giuseppe's own wedding, which would name his father outright. Then volume 1 images 134–170 and volume 2's early births for the 1746–1749 baptism gap. Marriage sweep done, and it is a nil that redirects the item. Both pages of images 286, 289–295 of volume 2 — 1769 through August 1772 — hold no Giuseppe Defranceschi marriage. Since he baptises his first child at Fiume on 23 November 1772, he married outside the town, almost certainly in Francesca's parish. The entry that names his father exists; it is somewhere else, and the way to it is to identify Francesca. Images 287–288 (about June–November 1769) are the only gap left in the Fiume run. *And a caution on the Benzoni:* they witness unrelated gentry marriages on image 289 too, so their appearance around Valentino's children in 1754–55 is not a family marker and should not be leaned on. Baptism sweep tally. Both pages of images 127–134, 136, 137 now read — 22 August 1745 to 2 October 1746. No Defranceschi as a father in any of it. Unread: 138–170 (Oct 1746 to 1749) and the second gap at images ~104–125 (1743–44). And the four children of Giuseppe × Francesca now have arks, so whoever picks this up can go straight to them: 1772 `3QS7-899F-WCFK` *(read — Helena Defranceschi godmother)*; 1774 `3QS7-899F-WHG6`; 1776 `3QS7-899F-WC34`; 1778 `3QSQ-G99F-WHGT` *(located on the page — «Die 8 Feb. 1778. Hellenam Ludovicam filiam legitimam D.ni Josephi et…» — godparent line not yet magnified)*. Their godparents are the cheapest remaining lead: a Defranceschi sibling standing for one of them would name the household without needing the 1746–49 grind. The godparent read paid, and it is the best evidence this item has. Giuseppe's second child, 12 July 1774 (`3QS7-899F-WHG6`): *«Hellenam Margaritham Mariam filiam legitimam D.D. Josephi et Franciscæ jugalium Defranceschi… levantibus D.no Ignatio Defranceschi et D.na Theresia Tomasich»*. Ignatius Francus Mattheus is one of Valentino's fifteen, baptised 29 July 1745 on image 126 of this same film — one of the four in no index at all. In 1774 he is twenty-eight. So Valentino's wife stands for Giuseppe's first child (1772) and Valentino's son for his second (1774). The forename is rare and this archive knows no other Ignatius Defranceschi at Fiume. *Still short of proof — no entry says «Josephus filius Valentini».* Remaining: the 1776 baptism (`3QS7-899F-WC34`) and the 1778 godparent line (`3QSQ-G99F-WHGT`), then the 1746–1749 gap or a death entry giving Giuseppe's age and father. All four godparent sets now read. 1772 Helena Defranceschi · 1774 Ignatio Defranceschi · 1776 Carolo Müller and Josepha Callinesi — no Defranceschi · 1778 Ludovico Henrich and Hellena Carina — no Defranceschi (resolved on a fifth crop; *Carina* also witnessed the Defranceschi–Benzoni marriage of 1771). So: two of four, settled, and settled against the reading this archive wanted. Fiume godparents were as much patronage as kin. 20 Sept, the sweep resumed — and the recurring Helena now has a name. Both pages of images 138–140 read: 10 November 1746 to 17 February 1747, no Defranceschi father. The running total of volume 1 baptisms read is now 127–134, 136–140 — *22 August 1745 to 17 February 1747*. On 140R, 26 January 1747, «patrini fuerunt D.nus Cosar, et Helena Defranceschi» — her fifth appearance in fourteen frames. Valentino the Carnian's wife was Helena, and she is the only Helena Defranceschi known to be living at Fiume then, so the recurring godmother is almost certainly her. She is written plain in 1747 and D.na in 1772, matching the household's own rise from *Valentinus* to *D.nus Valentinus* in the 1750s. This cuts both ways and the cut against is the important one. Five appearances in fourteen frames make her a habitual godmother, so her presence at Giuseppe's first son in 1772 is weak evidence of kinship — weaker than this item once claimed. Ignatio in 1774 is the load-bearing one, being a single appearance of a rare forename. *And a rival Helena exists*: b. 1725, d. 1809, of Gologorica — right age, wrong town. The entries give no patronymic, so the identification is by residence only. inf. Death route closed for now. The index carries no burial for our Giuseppe — 36 rows of the forename, one death-typed, and that man was born 1784. A death entry would give his age and probably his father, so it remains the best single document; it just has to be browsed, in Fiume Deaths 1766–1815 (`9R26-YWL`). Unread on the gap: volume 1 images 141–170 (Feb 1747 to 1749) and volume 2's early births for 1749; plus the second gap at images ~104–125 (1743–44). 20 Sept — the gap gave up a child, and it is not the one this item wanted. Images 138–146 of volume 1 now read, both pages: 10 November 1746 to 16 October 1747, continuous. On image 146L, under «Die 13 8bris 1747»: > «Franciscam Matthæam filiam legitimam D.ni Valentini, et Helenæ jugalium Defranceschi, natam 10 hujus, baptizavit D.nus Canonicus Hieronymus Moroldo.» A sixteenth child — a daughter, born 10 October 1747, in no index anywhere. She is not Matheus Franciscus, who is 1739 and has his own ark. This retires the premise of this item and sharpens it at the same time. The «five-year silence of 1746–1750» was the reason to think a hidden Giuseppe was plausible. There was no silence — the household was baptising in 1747, and the archive simply had not read the page. So the argument from absence is gone. But the same fact says the gap is productive: the first nine frames swept produced a Defranceschi baptism, and images 147–170 and ~104–125 are still unread. If a Giuseppe exists, that is where he is, and he will be found by reading rather than by inference. A correction has been published for the «fifteen children» heading, for the five-year-silence claim, and for dating the household's *D.nus / Ill.mus* styling to «the 1750s» — the 1747 entry already carries both. Helena's tally is now eight: four in images 127–133, then 26 January, 26 February, 26 March and 30 July 1747. That is a parish godmother, and it is the reason her 1772 appearance at Giuseppe's son carries little weight on its own. 20 Sept — answered, and not in the direction this item was pointing. Image 150R of volume 1: > «Die 29 May 1748. Josephum Aloysium filium legitimum D.ni Joannis Baptæ et D.næ Magdalenæ jugalium de Franceschi, natum 24 hujus, baptizavit D.nus Canonicus Eustachius Sauf. Patrini fuere D.nus Josephus Voxila et D.na Eleonora Franul.» Giuseppe was born on 24 May 1748, and his father was Joannes Baptista, not Valentino. The identification rests on five things that agree: the forename, the surname, the town, an age of 24 at his first child's baptism in November 1772 — and the fact that this archive had already found «Joannes Baptista Defranceschi, widower» marrying Catharina de Benzoni on 9 December 1771, which is exactly the status of a man whose wife *Magdalena* had died. The MyHeritage tree's unsourced b. 1748, d. 1778 for Giuseppe now has a document behind the birth year, and the death year sits in the same year as his last child's baptism. *Still inf:* no entry says «Josephus filius Joannis Baptistæ». But this is far stronger than the godparent argument, and it is the first document that gives Giuseppe a father at all. So the answer to the question as asked is: no. Giuseppe is not a sixteenth child of Valentino. He belongs to a second Defranceschi household at Fiume, and Helena in 1772 and Ignatio in 1774 were the other household standing for its kin — which was always the better reading of a habitual godmother. Marking this done and opening the question it leaves. How Joannes Baptista and Valentino are related is now the join that matters, and it is answerable: their marriage entries are on this same reel, in volume 1's marriages of 1734–1753, and a marriage entry names a father and usually a birthplace. That is item 143.

Two Defranceschi households baptised at Fiume in the 1740s, and nothing yet connects them. Valentino × Helena — *«venuto dalla Carnia»*, citizen of Fiume in 1739, sixteen children 1737–1757. Joannes Baptista × Magdalena — styled *D.nus*, baptising Josephus Aloysius on 29 May 1748 (film 005497925, image 150). A widower by 9 December 1771, when he marries Catharina de Benzoni (volume 2, image 293), with indexed children by her in 1773 and 1776. Josephus Aloysius is almost certainly the Giuseppe who heads the Rijeka chain, which makes this household the trunk of twenty-six indexed descendants, not a footnote. He is not Valentino's son. The only *Joannes Baptista* among Valentino's sixteen was baptised in 1751 and cannot father a child in 1748. Brother, cousin, or no relation at all — the register has not said. Why it is worth a name: if they are brothers, the Rijeka chain hangs off Carnia and joins the Mione line this archive already holds. If they are not, Fiume held two unrelated families of the name and a great deal of this archive's Kvarner material has been read as one thing when it is two. The read, precisely. Film 005497925, volume 1, which carries marriages 1734–1753 from about image 171 — image 171 is already known to show marriages of 1738. Joannes Baptista × Magdalena must marry before May 1748, so the window is 1734–1748, and Valentino × Helena marry before November 1737, so they are in the same run or just before it. A Fiume marriage entry names the father of each party and usually where he is from. Two entries would settle it. *Cheaper still if it works:* volume 2 carries marriages 1753–1776, already partly read for 1769–1772. Nothing there bears on this, so the read is volume 1's marriage section and nothing else. 20 Sept — one of the two marriages is found. Walking the marriage run backwards from image 189 (*October 1746*) through 170 and 169 to 168R, second entry: > «Die 28 Februarij 1737. D.num Valentinum de Franceschi ex Carnia, et Elenam Surcho junxit in matrimonium D.nus Petrus Eustachius Sauss Canonicus, præsentibus testibus Nob. D.no Petro Petrini et Nob. D.no Antonio Moretti.» «Ex Carnia» is now primary, two years before the citizenship of 1739, and Valentino's wife has a maiden name for the first time: Elena Surcho. *(Initial S or Z; given as read.)* But the entry names no father — Fiume marriage entries of this decade give the celebrant and the witnesses and stop there. So this join will not be made by filiation. It will be made, if at all, by finding Joannes Baptista × Magdalena in the same run and seeing whether the clerk writes «ex Carnia» over him too — and, better, by whether their witnesses are the same men. Read so far: images 168, 169, 170, 189. Unread: 171–188 (1738–1746) and 190–205 (1747–1753). Joannes Baptista must marry before May 1748, so 171–190 is the window, and it is twenty frames. 20 Sept — the Fiume marriage run is now read end to end, and the answer is a nil that moves the item. Images 168–191, both pages, November 1736 to February 1748. In twelve years there is one Defranceschi marriage: Valentino's own. Joannes Baptista × Magdalena are not in it. Their son was born 24 May 1748, so if they had married at Fiume they would be inside that window. They married somewhere else — exactly as their son Giuseppe would, and exactly as an incomer does. So this item leaves Fiume. Kobler's claim is that a Giovanni Battista De Franceschi came to Fiume from the Contea di Pisino intorno al 1740 and was *«senz'altro»* of the Gologorica family — this archive's own line. His pedigree adds that the man studied at Fiume and married a lady of the D'Agnese family. The test is now a single fact: Magdalena's maiden name. *D'Agnese confirms Kobler and hangs the whole Rijeka chain off this archive's own line. Anything else kills it.* And the place to find it is the County of Pazin's registers, which run from 1582 and this archive has never opened, not Fiume. Incidental, and worth having: Valentino stands witness at a Fiume wedding on 28 February 1740 (image 175L), three years to the day after his own — an occurrence in no index. And a near-miss is retired: *«Perill.ri D.no Josepho Defranchi»*, witness on image 187R in December 1745, is de Franchi, a different surname. 20 Sept, scoped — and the shelf is shorter than the question. Of the collection's 43 Istrian parishes, only two in the County of Pazin have marriage books covering 1740–1748: Pazin (1656–1852) and Tinjan (1703–1896). Gologorica, Gračišće, Pićan and Žminj are not in the collection at all — and Gologorica is the house with 1711 over the door. So a nil at Pazin and Tinjan does not disprove Kobler. It would mean the entry is in a book that cannot be opened from here, which is an errand, not a read. *Do not let a negative close this item.* Tinjan first. Darovec, quoted on this site already, puts the Friulian-Carnian stratum in *«Pazin, Pićan, Gradišće, Žminj and Tinjan»* — and Tinjan is the only one of the five that is filmed. Pazin is enumerated and anchored, ready to run: waypoint `9R26-16F:391644801,392372801,392373301`, 396 frames, arks saved to `scratchpad/pazin/arks.lst`. Index 134 = January 1741. Index 142 = 1746. Index 160 = October 1747 – January 1748. Read frames 128–165. *The volume binds three date-runs together, so anchor by reading and never by interpolating across them.* 20 Sept — Tinjan read, and it is a nil. Marriages 1703–1896, frames 9–13, both pages: 1733–1735 and 1741–1749. No form of the surname anywhere — not groom, bride, father or witness. The grooms are Červar, Milinarić, Antolović, Šubić, Smokovac, Dobrila: a Croatian village marrying its own, with Italian names appearing only as the notaries who witness everything. *That is worth having:* it says an incoming Carnian family is not quietly marrying into Tinjan in these years, which the Darovec quotation might have led this archive to assume. Gap: 1736–1740 was not located. Frame 9 ends 1735, frame 10 opens «Conjuncti sub Par.o Joanne… 1741». The volume already runs out of order, so those years may be elsewhere in it. A marriage up to 1747 is covered; 1736–1740 is not. Still open, in order: Tinjan 1736–1740 if it exists in the volume; then Pazin marriages, frames 128–165 (arks in `scratchpad/pazin/arks.lst`). And neither can close this item, because Gologorica, Gračišće, Pićan and Žminj are not filmed here — reaching those is an errand, not a read. ⚠ 20 Sept, later — the Pazin frame window published above is WRONG. Do not use it. The years read as 1741 / 1746 / 1747 at frames 134 / 142 / 160 are 1711 / 1716 / 1717: this clerk's 4 and 1 are not distinguishable at page scale. Frame 143 writes 1717 twice cleanly, which cannot sit eight frames after 1746. Re-anchored, all read: 143 = 1717, 178 = 1733, 198 = 1742, 200 = blank leaf, 205 = a microfilm resolution target, i.e. a volume boundary. ≈ 2.2 frames to the year. The window for 1740–1748 is frames ≈194–204, and it runs into the boundary at 205 — so check whether the last years continue in the section after the target. Eleven frames and a join. Arks 175–234 are in `scratchpad/pazin/arks175.lst`; 0–179 in `arks.lst`. *A correction is published for this. When anchoring by date heading in this hand, cross-check every year against a neighbouring frame — and check that the run is possible before writing it down.* 20 Sept — Pazin read end to end, and it is a nil. The online shelf for this question is exhausted. Frames 194–199 (Dec 1740 – Nov 1742) and 208–216 (1743 – Nov 1748), both pages each. No form of the surname in any role. The couples are Sgrablich, Mattesich, Cerovaz, Brattulich, Sironich, Mogorovich — an Istrian town marrying its own — and the Italian and German names belong to the Praepositus and the chaplain who officiate. The volume is three filmed items on one reel. The 1656– run stops at November 1742 on carta 150, then blank leaves, an «END OF ITEM» card at 203 and a resolution target at 205, and resumes at 1743 in the next item. Interpolating across that join lands in the wrong decade. Both filmed parishes of the Contea di Pisino are now nil for the window — Tinjan 1741–1749, Pazin 1740–1748. And neither touches Kobler, because Gologorica, Gračišće, Pićan and Žminj are in no part of this collection. This item is now an errand, not a read. What would answer it is the Državni arhiv u Pazinu, which holds the books themselves. *Leave the item open; do not close it on these nils.* --- 21 September 2026 — out of reach of full-text search, measured. FamilySearch full-text indexes Italian civil registration, not the Croatia Church Books: 97 collections sampled from its own results carry zero Croatian entries. This item is a Croatian church register and no query will reach it. It stays an archive question. --- 21 September 2026 — the premise is in doubt. FamilySearch's own household index for image 150 reads the 29 May 1748 baptism as «Josephum Aloysium MANCOSCHI», parents «Joannis Bapte Mancoschi» and «Magdalená Mancoschi» — the same date, the same child's forenames and the same parents' forenames this archive records as Defranceschi, with a different surname. Either the index misread *de Franceschi*, or this household was never ours and there is no second Fiume house to relate Valentino's to. The plate has not been magnified and until it is, this item cannot be answered — it can only be asked more precisely. See /searched/. 21 September 2026, later — SETTLED, and the premise holds. The plate reads *«Josephum Aloysium filium legitimum D.ni Joannis Baptæ et D.næ Magdalenæ jugalium DE FRANCESCHI, natus 28 hujus»*. The index's «Mancoschi» is simply wrong. There are two Defranceschi households at Fiume in the 1740s and the question of how they relate is live again. The godparents are Josephus Voxila and Eleonora Frauel — neither a Defranceschi — so this entry does not itself join the two houses. The next move is the same treatment on Valentino's sixteen baptisms, looking for a Defranceschi in anyone's godparent line. 21 September 2026, third pass — the first of Valentino's baptisms read on the plate. 17 September 1739: *«Matthæus Franciscus filius legitimus D. Valentini et Helenæ jugalium Defranceschi… Patrini fuere Nob. D.nus Petrus Ronaldi, et Nob. D.na Margarita uxor D.ni Georgij Vlah, Capitanei Cast[u]anensis»*. No Defranceschi godparent — so this entry does not join the houses either, and that is now two baptisms read with the same negative. What it does give is the social register. Valentino is styled *D.* in the very year he became a citizen of Fiume, and his son's godparents are nobles, one of them the wife of the Captain of Kastav. Joannes Baptista's household is likewise *D.ni* with *D.nus/D.na* godparents. Two Defranceschi houses in one port, both addressed as gentry, in one decade — a shared milieu, not yet a shared descent. Next: the remaining baptisms of Valentino × Helena, same treatment. 21 September 2026, fourth pass — four baptisms read, and the negative is now solid. 17 Sep 1739, 4 Sep 1741, 29 May 1748 and 26 Jun 1752, all read off the plate. Not one Defranceschi among the eight godparents. Every one of the eight carries an honorific — four are *Nobilis* — including the wife of the Captain of Kastav and the noble widow Antonia Monaldi, who stands for other families on the same leaf. Both households move among the port's nobility; no thread yet joins them to each other. *Vitipolis*, the index's place for Valentino's children, is very probably Fiume itself — *Terra Fluminis Sancti Viti*, the city of St Vitus — which removes the apparent contradiction with the film. *(inf.)* 22 September 2026 — fifth baptism read, same answer. 19 December 1742, *Francisca Joanna Theresia*, godparents D. Antonius de Campo Xenes and Nob. D.na Vidua Margaritha Salopp. Five baptisms, ten godparents, no Defranceschi. Also settled: *Mattio* and *Antonio*, held here as children born 1742 and 1753, are burials — so Valentino and Helena lost a child in July 1742 and an infant in September 1753. The godparent route is close to exhausted; the marriage registers are the next place to look. 22 September 2026 — the marriage route tested and the index is empty. Exact-surname *Franceschi* marriages across Croatia 1715–1775 return 120, filtered to Fiume 62, and neither Fiume marriage is among them. Most of the 62 are Omiš; two that looked like our couple are 1846 and 1852 Masatto marriages where *Franceschi* is a mother's maiden name; one genuine 1738 marriage (*Antonio × Margaritta Cambi*) sits on film 005494172, not Fiume's, with no place given. This item is not answerable from an index, and that is now shown rather than supposed. The route is the Fiume marriage register read on the plate. And the possibility that the answer is «they are not related» should stay open — five baptisms with no Defranceschi godparent is the shape unrelated households make. 22 September 2026 — the marriage register is open, and it was never a separate film. The volume is «Births 1734–1749 · Marriages 1734–1753», Rijeka — one book, filmed as 005497925, baptisms to about image 155 and marriages in the back fifty frames. This archive had been treating the film as a baptism register. Frame 175, 28 February 1740: *«…in matrimonium conjunxit D.nus Canonicus Devicho, præsentibus testibus D.no Valentino Defranceschi, et D.no Gregorio Kesner»*. Valentino stands witness at a Fiume wedding, styled *D.no*, four months after becoming a citizen. The next entry on the same leaf is witnessed by Nob. D. Antonio Spingarolli, godfather to Valentino's son in 1741. Defranceschi, Spingarolli and Monaldi recur together across both registers. Still to read: the remaining fifty frames. A marriage of either Fiume man would name his parents outright, which is the one thing that would settle this item either way. --- 22 September 2026 — the front of the marriage volume is closed, and the «remaining fifty frames» line was stale. Frames 160–167, both pages: 1 January 1734 to November 1736. No Defranceschi in any role — not groom, bride or witness. The volume has a beginning, and this is it. Frame 160 left is a blank leaf; frame 160 right carries the heading *«Liber Matrimoniorum Anni 1734. Sit Laus Deo, ac B. Virgini Mariæ»* on book page 150, with the first entry dated 1 January 1734. Frames 155–159 are the tail of the *baptism* volume, still in 1749 — the two registers sit back to back in one book, and the marriage section runs 160 → 1734 onward while the baptisms run to 1749, so the film's date order reverses at frame 160. What that settles: Valentino's wedding of 28 February 1737 is the first Defranceschi marriage in the book, with nothing of the name before it. Read together with the 20 September sweep of 168–191, the surname appears once in fourteen years of Fiume weddings, 1734–1748. And the reading of his own entry is corrected in one place. The second witness, published here as *«Nob. D.no Antonio Moretti»*, is Nob. D.no Antonio MONALDI — magnified and set beside a securely-read *«Laurentius Monaldi»* two frames earlier in the same hand, where the looped ld ligature is identical and the double t of *Moretti* is simply not on the page. So Valentino's own wedding is witnessed by a Monaldi, on the day he married, in the parish the Monaldi archpriest ran — the earliest link in the Defranceschi–Spingarolli–Monaldi circle by two years. *(The archpriest Petrus Maria Monaldi died in the autumn of 1736; a marginal note on frame 167 records the parish vacant until 4 March 1737 and a new parish priest installed 29 September 1737, which is why a canon and not the archpriest marries Valentino.)* The bride's surname gains a third live reading. The initial is this hand's ambiguous looped capital, so *Surcho* and *Zurcho* stand — but the body of the word is plainly -urcho, and Turcho belongs on the list beside them, because *Turco / Turcho* is a common name on this coast and *Surcho* is not. *Given as read; no one of the three is preferred.* Unread is not fifty frames, it is the tail. 168–191 were read on 20 September; the note above asking for «the remaining fifty frames» was written without that sweep in view. What is genuinely unread is 192 onward — frame 200 is 1751, and the volume's marriages end in 1753. *That stretch is after Joannes Baptista's son was born, so it cannot hold his marriage; it is worth reading for any other Defranceschi, and for whether he appears as a witness.* --- 22 September 2026, later — the Fiume marriage volume is read END TO END, and the count is one. Frames 160–204. 1 January 1734 to 7 February 1753. Nineteen years, both pages of every frame. Frame 204 right is a blank leaf (book page 194) and frame 205 is the microfilm's «END OF ITEM» card, so the volume has a documented back cover as well as a documented title page. In nineteen years of Fiume weddings the surname appears once: Valentino's, 28 February 1737. Not as a groom, not as a bride, not as a witness — with the single exception already known, Valentino standing witness on 28 February 1740. The tail read today, 192–204, is Joannes Baptista's last chance and he is not in it either. June 1748 to February 1753, the years *after* his son's birth. He does not marry at Fiume before 1748 and he does not marry at Fiume after it; his Fiume marriage is to Catharina de Benzoni in 1771, in volume 2, as a widower. *Magdalena was married somewhere else, and this volume can no longer be asked about her.* The join between the two sweeps was tested, not assumed. Frame 191 ends on 25 February 1748 and frame 192 opens on 2 June 1748 — a three-month hole exactly where two sessions' work meets, which is the most dangerous place on a reel. It is not a missing leaf. The pencil foliation runs 181 → 182 unbroken across the two frames, and Ash Wednesday 1748 fell on 28 February: the last wedding is three days before Lent begins and the register resumes after it. *The gap is the closed season, and the book is whole.* Logged as method. One caution on the Monaldi correction above. *Moretti* is not absent from this volume — an *«Antonium filium Bartholomæi Moretti Forojuliensem ex Gradisca»* marries on 14 February 1753, frame 204. The correction rests on the letterforms at native resolution and on the comparison with a securely-read *Monaldi*, not on the surname being impossible here. *Said plainly because a correction that leans on an absence which turns out not to exist is worse than the error it replaced.* And a caution on the circle. *Defranceschi–Spingarolli–Monaldi* has been read here as a pattern around this family. On 2 February 1752 (frame 201) Nob. D.no Petro Monaldi and Nob. D.no Antonio Spingarolli witness together at the wedding of a daughter of Nob. D.no Josephi de Franchi — a different family. The same pair witnesses for de Franchi again on 9 July 1752. Monaldi and Spingarolli are the port's standing noble witnesses, not a tie peculiar to this name. *The 1737 Monaldi at Valentino's wedding is still worth having; it is evidence of standing, not of kinship.* What this item has left. Fiume is exhausted for the marriage question: both the volume and the index have now been asked and answered. The item stands where it stood — Magdalena's maiden name, in the County of Pazin's own books at the Državni arhiv u Pazinu. *An errand, not a read.* --- 22 September — a name in the right decade, and nothing more. The Svetvinčenat sweep has turned up a Joannes Baptista de Franceschi alive there on 19 April 1739, and a second of that name dead before October 1737. This is not a lead yet and is not recorded as one. Fiume's Joannes Baptista fathers a child in 1748 and his origin is unknown; Svetvinčenat is sixty kilometres away in Venetian Istria, not the Contea di Pisino that Kobler points at. *No document connects the two, and the same register has just shown that this family reuses forenames freely enough that a match on one proves nothing.* What would make it a lead: the Svetvinčenat marriages 1762–1858 or the parish's own earlier marriage book, if either names a Joannes Baptista leaving the parish — or a Fiume entry giving his birthplace. *(lore, and deliberately held at that.)* --- 23 September 2026 — a Carnian Giovanni Battista, in Istria, six years early. Svetvinčenat, 20 December 1742: *«Patrini fuerunt Joannes Baptista de Franceschi, ex Cargn., et Maria uxor Gasparis Perlar»* — the only person of the name in that whole register given an origin, because he was not of the parish. ***Cargna* is the Venetian form of *Carnia*. This is the phrase this item has been circling.** Fiume's marriage register puts *«ex Carnia»* on Valentino in 1737; Fiume's Joannes Baptista fathers a child in 1748 and his origin has never been found. Here is a Joannes Baptista de Franceschi from Carnia, in Istria, in 1742. It is not evidence that they are the same man and this item does not treat it as such — *the register gives no age, no wife, no destination, and this family reuses forenames freely enough that a match on one proves nothing.* What it changes is where to look. The question was *«where did Fiume's Joannes Baptista come from»*, answered only by Kobler's assertion of the Contea di Pisino. *There is now a documented Carnian of that exact name forty kilometres away, six years before.* The next move is unchanged in kind and sharper in aim: the Svetvinčenat marriage books that Pazin holds digitally for 1674–1762 — the stretch FamilySearch does not film — because a marriage entry would give this man a father and a home village. --- 28 September — a second Fiume household falls out of yesterday's date corrections, and it is not the one this item is about. *Two rows whose dates had been copied from other people's burials turned out to sit on real Fiume baptisms: Anna Maria, 4 March 1801, and Pietro, 10 April 1803, the latter naming his mother Ursula. They were briefly and wrongly attached to Valentino × Helena — whose children stop in 1757.* They belong to Valentinus Defranceschi, born 1775/76, who married Ursulam De Berzoni at Fiume on 6 October 1793. *The marriage act is `1:1:6YBR-ZFPR` and names the couple together, so it is now a spouse link in the roster rather than an assumption.* ⚠ And it puts a name one letter away from this item's own open question. *Item 143 has been waiting on Magdalena's maiden name, with Joannes Baptista's second marriage — to Catharina de BENZONI, 9 December 1771 — as the only Benzoni in view. Here is a de BERZONI marrying a Defranceschi at the same parish twenty-two years later.* Benzoni and Berzoni may be one family or two, and nothing read so far decides it: *the difference is a single letter in two clerks' hands, and this archive has already had one surname correction of exactly that kind this month — Moretti read for Monaldi on a looped ligature.* Not treated as a lead. Recorded so that whoever opens the Pazin books knows to test both spellings.

Ninety-nine catalogue records, fifty of this name, twenty people now on the roster — and none of the files themselves has been opened. The catalogue gives rank, posting and sometimes birthplace for free. Four of the fifty would give a household if ordered, because of what the document type is rather than what the catalogue says: · `AT-OeStA/KA Marine NMA Pers OffBea Akten MGBBl 2651` — Johann Defranceschi, born 1833 at Gallignana. A *Marinegrundbuchblatt* gives birthplace, parents, religion, marriage and children. For a man out of Gračišće, the origin parish, that is the single most valuable unopened document in this list. · `AVA Justiz JM Präs. A 134.22` — Carl Dragutin Defranceschi, born 29 July 1883 at Zara. A *Prospetto dello stato personale* gives birthplace, parents and career. · `AVA Justiz JM Präs. A 140.14` — Giovanni Pietro de Franceschi, born at Rovigno. A *Personalstandesausweis*, same shape. · `KA Marine NMA Pers VerEv KL-GagoRangkl 725` — Josef Franceschi, born at Almissa. The first man here documented as *born* at Omiš by a state record. All four are public and permission-free, so the cost is reproduction, not research — and the Kriegsarchiv's own EUR 45 *search* fee is already shown to be unnecessary where the file is catalogued to the item. Ordered together they would test something this archive cannot otherwise test: whether the Austrian service families of the name — Venice, Zadar, Omiš, Rovinj, Gračišće — are one stock or several. *Four documents, one envelope.* ⚠ 28 September — the catalogue is unreachable, and this is the instrument failing rather than the archive. * resolves to 85.158.227.121 and then times out on port 443. Tested from the same machine and the same minute in which FamilySearch connects normally, so it is not this network.* The free field search that answered the €45 question on 20 September does not answer at all today. *Nothing is concluded from the silence: a catalogue that will not open is not a catalogue that holds nothing, and this item keeps every record it already has. Retry before assuming anything has changed.*

The roster has been tested against the dates. The other pages have not, and the answer is David's rather than this archive's. The rule as published is *«living relatives are named and nothing more»* — written for family, and applied by a hand-set flag that could only ever catch people David knew to name. On 22 September the roster was tested mechanically instead and eight strangers born 1931–1946 with no death recorded came out; they now print name and place only. The same test has not been run on the narrative pages, and they hold more. On the diaspora page alone: · The Philadelphia family of 1954 — *«Bosiljka Defranceski, born 1918, with Brank born 1942, Jela born 1946 and Mojuil born 1947»*. Three people who would be in their late seventies and eighties. · Nelida Albina, born 9 September 1931 at Mercedes — a full date, from an Argentine baptism ark. · Angelo born 17 May 1927 and Eugene born 5 September 1930 at Clarksburg, West Virginia. Every one of them is out of a public index, and every one is somebody's private business if they are alive. The decision, plainly. *Does the rule cover only the family, or everybody this site names?* If it covers everybody, the dates come out of those findings and the findings get thinner — the 1954 Philadelphia arrival is largely *made of* those dates. This archive has not made that call and will not make it quietly, because unlike every other question here it is not about accuracy. *The roster fix was done because the notice at its head made a claim that was untrue; extending it further changes what published research says, and that is David's to decide.* --- 22 September 2026 — decided, by David, the same day it was put to him: the rule is about his relatives, as written. *«Family only.»* A person this site names from an already-public index keeps the dates that index publishes — withholding them here makes nobody more private and takes the substance out of the finding. The 1954 Philadelphia arrival, the Clarksburg brothers, the Dignano household in the refugee papers: all keep their dates. Three roster rows were put back the same hour. Giordana, Maria and Claudio of the Dignano household had been held as possibly living for about ninety minutes; they came out of the Arolsen collections, not the family tree, so under the decision they keep what the file says. Five rows stay held — Nelida Albina, Feliciano, Richard, Assunta Maria and Daria — because those are people in David's own tree, and that is exactly who the rule is for. What survives from the exercise, and is worth more than the eight rows: the test itself. *A hand-set flag cannot express «this person may be alive»* — it can only record who somebody remembered to mark. `living-audit.py` now runs the arithmetic first and prints anyone born within ninety-five years carrying neither a death nor a flag. Today it prints none. When the next import adds one, it will say so before anybody has to notice.

`check:sources` is running on every build as of 22 September, and the first thing it says is that this archive cites seventy-three hosts it has never described. Among them: `cemla.com` (the Argentine arrival index), `collections.arolsen-archives.org` (which produced the Dignano household), `arhinet.arhiv.hr` (the Croatian state archives' catalogue), `archives.isula.corsica`, `archivesenligne.meurthe-et-moselle.fr`, `digitalna.nsk.hr`, `data.onb.ac.at`, `croatianroots.com`, `chan.archivesnationales.culture.gouv.fr`. Why it matters on a site whose whole argument is provenance. The bibliography is where this archive says what a source is, what it gave, and where it is weak. A host that appears only as a bare link in a table is a citation with no account of itself — *the reader is asked to trust a domain name.* The work is to write them up, not to delete the links: each needs a line saying what the body is, what this archive got from it, and whether it is free, paywalled or behind a bot check. Ten of the eighty-five already listed have no way to reach them at all and say so, which is the standard the seventy-three should be brought to. *The check reports and does not fail on this, so the number is a ratchet to drive down rather than a blocker.* --- Done, 27 September. `check:sources` no longer reports a single host. *The count went 73 → 57 → 41 → 31 → 0 across four passes, and the bibliography went from 92 entries to 155.* The material was mostly already written, and copying it would still have been wrong. *Forty-six of the seventy-three hosts already had entries on the research register saying what was asked and what came back.* A generator turning those into «this archive has gone to it N times, see the register» would have passed the check and produced exactly what the item complains about — *a citation with no account of itself.* So they are written, one at a time. Five of the seventy-three were never sources, and giving them their own lines would have satisfied the check while misdescribing the archive. *`sg30p0.familysearch.org` is FamilySearch's own image server; `data.onb.ac.at` is ANNO's permalink host; and `artgallery.yale.edu`, `armchairgeneral.com` and `purl.org` appear only inside the credit field of a Wikimedia Commons image record — they are a licence's attribution chain, not bodies this archive consulted.* Each now sits on the entry of the source it actually belongs to. *Geneanet had two entries proposed and kept one: one body, one line.* What the pass turned up, beyond the writing. *Žminj's own municipal history describes the «Carnielli» of Istria — men who spent part of each year back at Agrons near Ovaro and married only girls from there — which is the pattern this whole archive is trying to document, stated locally, and pointing at the same comune the Antenati survey reached independently.* Udine's Notarile antico B. 2979, the protocols of Gio. Batta Franceschi, notary at Mione 1737–1783, is the best unread paper for the Carnic question and needs a letter rather than a search box. *And the Museu da Imigração at São Paulo is not blocked but broken — every query returns HTTP 500 — so the Brazilian arrivals are unread rather than absent.*

Minting the frozen person ids on 23 September reported 48 collisions on name and birth and death, and this archive called them «probable duplicates» in writing without looking at one of them. *Looked at on 27 September, that was wrong twice over: there are 33 groups, not 48, and not one pair is identical — every group differs in place, source or line.* Splitting them by PLACE separates the two halves cleanly. 17 groups / 41 rows sit in DIFFERENT parishes — a Pietro of 1734 at Svetvinčenat, another at Bale, five more at Vodnjan; an Antonio of 1753 dead the same year at Rijeka, at Spalato and at Vodnjan. These are not duplicates and must not be merged. *A one-name study that did not produce them would be hiding something: the same saint's day, the same naming custom, the same decade, eight parishes.* 16 groups / 34 rows share a name, dates AND place. *Those are the candidates*, and the source pairs say why: `burial` + `myheritage`, `household` + `read`, `grave` + `myheritage`, `household` + `myheritage` — one person entered once from a record and once from the live tree is the classic shape. The list: Cristoforo 1824 Vodnjan (3), Domenico 1803 Vodnjan (3, all `read`), Bortolo 1756 Šterna, Leonardus 1766 Gologorica, Pietro and Domenica of Vodnjan, Franz 1822, Giovanni 1829 and Stefano 1831 Vodnjan, Julius 1833 Rijeka, Giovanni 1845 Ližnjan, Joanna 1848 Gologorica, Angelo 1851 Pola, Matteo 1874 Poreč, Giacomo at Broken Hill. Nothing has been merged. *Each one is a judgement about two records and a person, not a string comparison, and the id minting deliberately froze both rows rather than guessing — a merge performed by a script is a person deleted by a script.* Domenico of 1803 at Vodnjan is the one to start with: three rows, all from `read`, all one town. --- Corrected within the hour, and the correction is bigger than the finding. *The count above — 33 groups, 16 candidates — was produced by grouping on the exact name string. In an archive whose founding premise is that the name varies, that is the wrong key.* «Antonio De Franceschi» and «Antonio Defranceschi», both born 1704, both at Svetvinčenat, one from a record and one from the live tree, were two separate groups — because of one space. They are the plainest duplicate signature in the file and the check walked past them. Folding the surname the way this archive's own `namefold` does — stripping *de/di/del*, collapsing every spelling of the name to one token, dropping married names in brackets — gives: · 93 groups, 228 rows colliding on folded-name + birth + death · 36 groups / 75 rows share a place as well — the duplicate candidates · 57 groups / 153 rows are in different parishes — coincidence, and correct Twenty-six candidate groups were invisible to the exact-string check, among them Mattia 1669, Zuana 1688, Batista 1692 and Antonio 1704 all at Svetvinčenat; a run of Vodnjan people from 1816 to 1833; and pairs where one row carries a married name in brackets — *Anna Defranceschi* and *Anna Defranceschi (Baichin)*, *Catarina* and *Catarina (Kisdaris)*, *Veneranda* and *Veneranda (Demarin)*. *Still nothing merged. But the size of the job is twice what was published an hour ago, and the reason it was understated is the same fault as everything else this week: a check keyed on something other than the thing it was checking.* --- Adjudicated, 27 September — and the archive was already holding the proof. *Thirty-six groups share a folded name, a birth year, a death year and a place. The question was always which of them are one person written twice.* The answer was in the `ark` field: where two rows carry the SAME FamilySearch ark, they are the same record entered twice, and that is proof rather than resemblance. *Nothing had ever compared them.* Eighteen pairs are proven duplicates by identical ark — *Mattia 1669, Zuana 1688, Batista 1692, Antonio 1704 and Maria Maddalena 1825 at Svetvinčenat; Domenica Maria 1816, Domenica Michiela Giovanna 1818, Stefano Matteo 1822, Pasqua 1825, Lucia 1826, Pietro 1828, Giovanni 1829 and Maria 1833 at Vodnjan; Pietro Antonio 1810 and Cattarina 1811 at Paluzza; Aloysius 1790 at Vižinada; Natale Mattio 1816; Franco at Rovinj.* In every one, a register row and a MyHeritage row describe one child. Seven pairs carry two DIFFERENT arks and are not proven either way — *Mariam 1632, Bortolo 1756, Anna 1799, Elisabetta 1810, Gregorio 1822, Julius 1833, Giacomo d. 2012.* *Four of these pair a `6YBR`/`6YBT` ark against a `6B47` one, which looks like two collections indexing one event — but looking like it is not being it, and each needs the register.* Seven have an ark on one side only and rest on circumstance: *Joannes Baptista 1752 and Joanna 1848 at Gologorica are identical in every field and are almost certainly a double insert; Marianna 1809 is the Mione child buried in the 1810 «Morti» at about a year old; Veneranda is the same wife of Antonio Demarin twice.* Ten pairs are distinct men and women whose rows say so in their own notes — *the three Cristofori of Vodnjan, the Fiume shoemaker Giovanni q.m Pietro, the two Elene of Svetvinčenat, the two Giacomi, and the three Peters.* *These must never be merged, and the folded key would have merged them.* *Full table: `data/duplicate-adjudication.json`.* Nothing is merged yet. The eighteen are merged, and not one address moved. *Deleting a duplicate row would delete a URL, and these pages have been published and linked since 23 September — which is the whole reason the person ids are frozen and never derived from a birth year.* So the duplicate keeps its page and the page says what it is: *a pointer to the person, with the ark that proves it.* Everything the duplicate held was folded into the surviving row first — *twenty fields, including every MyHeritage id, so nothing now exists only on the page that points away.* Which row survives is not a matter of taste. *In all eighteen the pair is one register row against one MyHeritage row, and the register's spelling wins,* because this archive prefers what the document says to what a tree says about it. No row of the direct line is touched. *`/person/` now lists 1,428 people rather than 1,446: it had been counting eighteen children twice.* ⚠ One thing is left undone and is not mine to do. *A `<link rel="canonical">` is what would stop a search engine indexing both addresses. `Base.astro` has no head slot and belongs to the session that owns the cross-site layout.* The pointer is stated in prose, in the eyebrow and in the page description instead, and the head link should be added when that session next opens the layout. The remaining seven need a register, and one attractive shortcut is dead. *Four of the seven pit a `6YBR`/`6YBT` ark against a `6B47` one, and it was tempting to read that as two FamilySearch collections indexing a single event — which would have settled all four at once.* It is not true. *Across the whole roster `6B47` runs to 123 arks and `6YBR` to 51, and both span several parishes and every kind of source: `6B47` is mostly Vodnjan but holds twelve Rijeka records, `6YBR` is mostly Rijeka.* The prefix is ark hash space, not a collection, and it carries no information about what indexed the record. *The two arks must therefore be opened and compared. `curl` gets 403 from FamilySearch — the same client-filtering signature Antenati gives — and the API gives 401. The browser session is signed out: every `ark:/61903/` URL redirects to the FamilySearch front page.* Blocked until David signs in again, at which point the seven are half an hour's work. --- And four LIVING women are each on the roster twice, which is two more than this archive thought. *Raised by the «Family research landing site» session on 27 September as a counting question, and the count led somewhere else.* `check:living` reports 54 and the roster carries 58 `living: true` rows — *not a leak, and not a gate failure: the harvest keys by NORMALISED name, and `norm` strips a married surname in parentheses, so four pairs collapse to four keys.* Both spellings stay protected, because the bare form is a substring of the parenthetical one. What the collision exposes is the duplication underneath it. *Each of the four is one woman entered twice from MyHeritage — once under her married name with no place, once with a place and no married name:* Petrica Defranceski (Baviello) / Petrica Defranceski of Horsham; Lidija Defranceski (Ruffini) / Lidija Defranceski of Crikvenica; Renata Defranceski (Buck) / Renata Defranceski of Metzingen; Ursula Defranceski (Korn) / Ursula Defranceski of Urach. *Ursula and Renate were already known and already waiting on David. Petrica and Lidija are new.* Nothing is merged and nothing will be without him: *the ark test that settled the eighteen dead cannot be run here — these rows have no ark — and merging two records of a living relative on a resemblance is not a thing to do unasked.* --- Closed, 27 September. All seven remaining pairs opened on FamilySearch, and they split four to three. Three are one person recorded twice: · ***Bortolo* — burial 1812 aged 56, son of Gio Battista, against a marriage of 1777 to Zanetta Granisi, son of Gio Batta. Same father; a man who marries at twenty-one is fifty-six in 1812. · *Gregorio* — baptism at Ližnjan 1822, son of Mattio and Madalena Peuc…, against a marriage of 1845 aged 23 to Agata Schiffich. 1845 less 23 is 1822. · *Mariam* — the same baptism, 9 September 1632 at Rijeka, indexed twice under two collections: «Delnice Deanery» and «Croatia, Church Books». ⚠ That last one is the limit of the ark test and is worth stating.** *This archive's rule since this morning has been that two different arks prove two different records. Mariam has two arks and one baptism, because two FamilySearch collections overlap on the same parish. The rule holds one way and not the other: the same ark proves one record; different arks do not prove two.* Four are different people, and the parents settled every one: · *Elisabetta* — *a burial of 26 September 1810, father Franco, against a baptism of 2 April 1810, parents Anna and Andrea. Two infants of one name, in one town, in one year, to two households.* · *Julius* — *a burial of 25 August 1833 aged 0, against Julius the father naming a daughter in 1829.* · *Anna* — *an infant buried in 1800, against Anna the mother at her daughter's baptism at Kaštelir in 1849.* · *Giacomo of Broken Hill* — *a Find a Grave entry, died 19 November 2012, against the 1909 baptism of Germano Defranceschi at Cloz, Trento, which is a different man in a different country.* Two marriages fell out as spouses, each from a record naming the couple together: *Bortolo × Zanetta Granisi (1777) and Gregorio × Agata Schiffich (1845).* The roster now carries ten spouses, eight of them from documents rather than from the family chart.

The landing-site session shipped kit a35acb9: `no` and `open` are out of the Evidence alias table, and an unrecognised level now renders «Ungraded» instead of resolving to «Family». *That changes published text wherever an archive was feeding it a value it did not recognise, so every feed here was checked rather than assumed.* Four feeds, and all four are clean. *`l.status` on the lines page takes documented, inferred and lore. `p.confidence` on the people pages takes documented, inferred and lore. `d.conf` in the destinations table takes doc, inf and lore. `n.conn` took `no` six times — and no longer reaches the component at all, since it renders «No link shown».* Nothing in this archive would come out as «Ungraded», and the kit can be updated without changing a word on any page. The audit found a trap of this archive's own making, which is the part worth keeping. *The destinations table mapped `conf` with a ternary: doc → documented, inf → inferred, anything else → lore, and lore renders as «Family».* The `conf` field across this archive's data also takes `neg`, `strong` and `living` — *and `neg` is the archive saying a thing is not this family.* A negative finding would have been published under a badge reading «Family». *No destination carries those values today, so nothing was wrong on the page; it was wrong in the same way the notables column was wrong before anyone looked.* The mapping is now total and an unrecognised value renders «Ungraded» rather than the most credulous answer in the set. *Still outstanding: the kit here is 1.0.0 and updating it touches `site/package*.json`, which is shared ground. David's call, or the kit owner's. Until then the new living summary line — which states rows and names separately instead of printing either as «people» — will not appear in this build.*

`conf` means three things in this archive's data and that is why the credulous defaults were dangerous. *A grade of a claim in `families.json` and `explorer.json` (doc, inf, lore, probable, strong); a negative finding in `gists.json` (`neg` — «nothing yet joins the Gologorica house to the Gallignana line»); a living person in `ancestors.json` (`living`).* Every renderer that touches it has to guess which meaning it has, and three of them guessed in the credulous direction before this was noticed. *The fallbacks are now loud and neutral, which is the right answer while the field is ambiguous — but it is a patch on the symptom.* The fix is to split the key: *`grade` for the five evidence levels, and separate fields for a negation and for living status, which are not grades and should never reach a grading component.* *Not started. It touches four data files and five pages, and the loud defaults make it safe to do slowly.* --- 28 September 2026 — measured instead of remembered, and it is four times the size this item claimed. *This item said «four data files and five pages». It is seventeen files and 176 values, and the shape of the problem is worse than «one key, three meanings». Counted by `scripts/audit-conf.py`, which exists so the next attempt starts from the real number and can re-check it in a second.* | | | |---|---| | files carrying the field | 17 | | values in total | 176 | | key names | `conf` ×147 and `confidence` ×29 — the same idea under two names | | canonical grades (`doc`/`inf`/`lore`) | 110 | | the same grades spelled out (`documented`/`inferred`) | 21 | | a second vocabulary (`probable`/`strong`/`family`) | 25 | | free prose in the grade key | 15 | | not grades at all | 5 | The five that are not grades: *`neg` ×2 in `gists.json` — a negative finding; `living` ×3 in `ancestors.json` and `directline.json` — a person marker.* This item said `living` was in one file. It is in two. ⚠ And two failure modes this item had not named. · `doc` and `documented` are the same grade written two ways, as are `inf` and `inferred`. *A lookup table keyed on one silently falls through on the other — which is exactly the mechanism that produced the credulous defaults. The bug was never really about `neg` and `living`; it was about a key whose vocabulary nobody could enumerate.* · Fifteen values are sentences, not grades — in `cheryl.json`, `diaspora.json`, `omis.json` and `rivers.json`. *A renderer that grades them will grade a paragraph.* Not started, and deliberately not started today. *A rename touching seventeen data files and every renderer that reads them is not a thing to half-do at the end of a long session — a partly-renamed key is worse than an overloaded one, because the fallbacks that currently shout «Ungraded» would start shouting it at correctly-graded rows. The loud neutral defaults hold the line meanwhile.* What the split should be, now that the vocabulary is known: *`grade` for the evidence levels, normalised to one spelling; `negative: true` for the two findings in `gists.json`; `living: true` for the three person markers; and the prose moved to a field that is plainly prose.* The `probable`/`strong` scale in `explorer.json` and `lineages.json` is a separate decision — *it is a different question being graded, and merging it into the doc/inf/lore scale would flatten a distinction rather than fix one.*

`data/decisions.json` holds the values that must not change quietly, and the gate refuses when one does. *Not counts — `check-witness.py` does counts and only reports. These are judgements, and changing one should cost a deliberate edit in the same commit.* The pids are the reason this exists. *A person id is minted once and never derived, because a derived id moves when a birth year is corrected and a moved id is a dead URL. The witness counts 1,446 of them and that number is identical whether or not one now addresses a different person — a count cannot see a substitution.* *The mapping is declared instead: adding is free, changing or removing refuses and names the person.* *Also declared: the kit pin, and the living policy `named-bare` — which every other check reads rather than decides, so weakening it would widen what may publish while every gate still passed.* All five refusals were provoked deliberately before the check was wired in.

This archive pins the shared kit at `7210356` (26 September, 22:35) and ten commits sit ahead of it. *Seven touch `checkliving.py`, two `checkkin.py`, one `Evidence.astro`, and two add new tools.* Updating touches `site/package.json` and the lock, which is shared ground, so it is not this session's to do. It was dry-run against this archive rather than argued about: the kit at `31f7a5c` was cloned to a scratch directory and every kit check in the build was run against this site. All pass. *The single failure — `check:kit` on a missing `sitemap.xml` — reproduces identically on the CURRENT kit and is an artefact of a bare `astro build`, not of the update.* The reason to do it is `checkkin`, and the finding is true today whether or not the pin ever moves. *The current gate prints «1446 people · 0 impossible relationship(s)».* The new one prints «427 of 1446 people carry both dates and were examined · 546 a birth only, 54 a death only, 419 no year at all». *This gate has been green over 1,446 people while examining 427 of them — thirty per cent — and the line it printed did not say so.* 419 people in this archive carry no year at all and no build has ever mentioned it. *`checkliving` also gets more honest: «no living person reaches the build» becomes the row-and-name breakdown — «59 flagged row(s) … under 55 distinct name(s) — 4 row(s) collapse» — which is exactly what `scripts/check-witness.py` computes independently, and the two agree.* The four collapsing rows are Petrica, Lidija, Renata and Ursula, who would become visible in build output rather than only here. ⚠ Expect the gate to REFUSE on the first build after the bump, and that is the design: *`data/decisions.json` declares the pin, so moving it stops the build until it is re-declared in the same commit.* *A `site/.kitpin` will also appear untracked on the first build; it is meant to be committed.*

Found while opening the seven unresolved duplicate pairs on FamilySearch, and it is worse than the duplicates were. *Twenty-five roster rows carry `yfrom: «a dated entry already in this project's own burials/graves/gologorica-line/households data»` — meaning the year was not read from that person's record. It was copied from another entry in this archive that shared the name.* Nine were opened. Eight are wrong. · *Five women called Maria Defranceschi — Browachio, Buman, Contossich, Covaz, Dobrez — all carried b. 1757, d. 1757 at Rijeka, from one burial. Five women cannot each be born, die and acquire a married surname in the same year. Browachio's own record is the birth of her daughter at Termeno, Bolzano, in 1907; Contossich's is her marriage in 1788; Dobrez's is her daughter's baptism at Kaštelir in 1853.* · *Maria (Covaz) may not be a Defranceschi at all: her record is the baptism of Mariam Covaz in 1766, both parents Covaz, and the name does not appear in it.* · *Anna (Baichin) was published as an infant dead in 1800. Her record is her daughter's baptism at Kaštelir in 1849.* · ***Julius* was published as born in 1833. His record is his daughter's baptism in 1829 — he was a father four years before his printed birth.* · *Giacomo d. 2012 of Broken Hill* *sits on a record for Germano Defranceschi, baptised at Cloz, Trento, in 1909.* Eight rows have had their years withdrawn and each now states what its record actually says. *Two — Covaz and Giacomo — are held pending a decision on whether the row should exist at all.* `elisabetta-defranceschi-1810-2` was checked and stands: *its baptism of 2 April 1810 at Fiume is consistent with the burial later that year, so that pair is a genuine duplicate candidate.* Seventeen rows of the twenty-five are still unchecked. *Ten of them have no ark, so they cannot be settled this way at all.* *The general fault: a year copied because two rows share a name is not evidence, and this archive printed it as though it were.* --- Closed, 27 September. All twenty-five adjudicated, and the mechanism failed almost every time it could be tested. Sixteen rows carried a record identifier that could be opened. Fifteen were wrong. *The sixteenth — Matteo of Poreč — is restricted by FamilySearch («this record can only be displayed on certain accounts»), so it cannot be tested from here and its years are withdrawn rather than left standing on an untestable basis.* The shapes the error took: · *A different person entirely.* *Giuseppe «1784–1819» sits on Teresa Defranceschi, born 1881 at Rivolta d'Adda, Cremona — a woman, ninety-seven years later, five hundred kilometres away. Franciscus «1819–1892» sits on Emanuel Antonius, baptised at Kaštelir on New Year's Day 1860. Giovanni «1845–1846» sits on Giuseppe Costante, born 1856 at Telve, Trento.* · *The right person at the wrong century.* *Anna Maria is genuinely a Defranceschi baptised at Fiume — in 1801, not 1844. Pietro is genuinely a Defranceschi baptised at Fiume — in 1803, not 1884.* · *Another child's dates, betrayed by the parish.* *The Gologorica Joannes wore the years of a Joannes buried at Ližnjan; the Gologorica Josephus wore the years of a Josephus buried at Kaštelir.* · *An event of the wrong kind.* *Francesco «d. 1686 at Pola» sits on a baptism at Omiš in 1657.* Four were not errors at all but double inserts — *Joannes Baptista 1752, Joanna 1848, Leonardus 1766 and Joseph 1929, each entered twice from one reading.* They are merged rather than stripped, because a copied year can mean «this is the same person» as well as «this is the wrong person», and the two need opposite treatments. ⚠ And two of the errors are worth more than the correction. *Anna Maria (1801) and Pietro (1803) are both baptised at Fiume to a father called Valentino — and Pietro's act names his mother Ursula. That is two more children and a wife for the Valentino of Fiume whose household item 143 exists to reconstruct.* A wrong date led to a right record. ⚠ 28 September — a correction to the paragraph above, made the day after writing it. *Yesterday's closing note said Anna Maria (1801) and Pietro (1803) were «two more children and a wife for the Valentino of Fiume whose household item 143 exists to reconstruct». They are not. Valentino × Helena's children run 1737–1757, and Pietro's act names his mother Ursula, not Helena.* They belong to a later Valentino: *Valentinus Defranceschi, born 1775/76, who married Ursula de Berzoni at Fiume on 6 October 1793 — `1:1:6YBR-ZFPR`, an act that names the couple together.* Right family, right port, wrong generation by two. *The irony is exact and is left standing: the sentence was written inside a commit whose whole subject was «the right person at the wrong century», describing that error in other people's work while committing it.* A vocabulary for a mistake is not protection against it.

Asked on 27 September whether every Defranceschi and every spouse had been harvested. The honest answer is no, and now there are numbers instead of an impression. What the two subscription sources actually hold, counted signed-in on 27 September: · FamilySearch, exact «Defranceschi» — 8,235 records. *«De Franceschi» returns the same 8,235, so the index is insensitive to the space and the two are one bucket, not two.* · FamilySearch, «Defranceski» — 131. · FamilySearch, «Franceschi» — 44,024, *which is a broader name and mostly other families; this archive's one-name-study scope governs how much of it is in scope.* · Findmypast, exact «Defranceschi» — 548: *113 birth, marriage, death and parish · 94 census, land and surveys · 328 travel and migration · 7 directories · 5 military · 1 education.* What this archive holds against that: 637 of its 1,446 rows carry a FamilySearch ark at all — *and those 637 are spread across every spelling and every collection.* Against the 8,235 Defranceschi bucket alone that is roughly eight per cent, and no pass has ever gone through that result set methodically. *What exists instead is a set of targeted searches, each written up on the research register, which is a different thing from a harvest.* ⚠ And spouses are not harvested at all. *The roster has no spouse field — the word does not appear in its schema.* *Spouses exist only in `households.json` (132 entries) and in the eight generations of `directline.json`.* Of 1,339 people in the dossiers, none carries a spouse. *So a marriage in the index — which is frequently the only record naming a woman's maiden family — has nowhere to go in this archive's main table.* *The work this implies is a harvest rather than a search: page the 8,235, take the ark, the event, the place and every named relation, and reconcile against the 637 already held. The 548 on Findmypast are the smaller and more urgent half, because that subscription ends about 16 October.*

The first complete harvest this archive has ever taken from a subscription source. *Not a targeted search — every record Findmypast holds under the exact surname, paged end to end: 28 pages, 548 records, 548 distinct ids, no gaps and no duplicates, matching the site's own reported total exactly.* How, so it can be repeated before the subscription ends about 16 October. *The results page is a React app over a GraphQL API whose root query is not reachable by hand and whose introspection is switched off. The records are in the page's own Apollo cache, `window.__APOLLO_CLIENT__.cache.extract()`, keyed `Record:`. Paging is the parameter `_page`, not `page` — `page` silently returns a zero-result search rather than an error. Each page was read into `sessionStorage`, which survives same-origin navigation, and dumped once at the end.* No bot check was met and none was circumvented. What the 548 are. *By category: 301 passenger-list entries, 66 census, 54 civil deaths, 39 marriages and divorces, 28 electoral-roll, 15 migration, 12 naturalisations, 16 parish records, 7 directories, 5 First World War draft cards, 1 school pupil.* *By place: 260 «Americas» and 196 United States, 46 Australia, 32 England, 12 Italy, and one each in Wales and Smyrna.* *Years run 1842 to 2023, with 25 records carrying none; the peak is the 1910s (83) and the 1930s (71).* The index spells the name two ways and they are not interchangeable: *366 as «de Franceschi», 173 as «Defranceschi», plus a «De-Franceschi» and a «Guglielmetti Defranceschi». Seven records carry no forename at all and seven more are directory pages with no person on them.* ⚠ Nothing is reconciled yet, and most of it is not this family. *These are index rows — id, forename, surname, year, record set, place. The transcripts behind them are a separate fetch and the images another. No row has been matched against the roster and none should be assumed to be a relative: the Memphis, Chicago, Detroit, Torrington and Puerto Rico clusters are visibly other households.* *The next step is reconciliation against the 637 arks already held, then the transcripts — while the subscription lasts.* --- The harvest was incomplete and the archive's own notes caught it. *`findmypast.json`, written 16 September, records the corpus by spelling: «defranceschi» 548 — which the harvest matched exactly, eleven days later, so the corpus is stable and the paging sound — but also «defranceski» 36, «different, and almost entirely this family».* That spelling had not been harvested. *It is now: `data/harvest/findmypast-defranceski.tsv`, 36 records, matching the recorded figure.* And it is the family, unlike most of the 548. *Zdravko and Ruža at Horsham; Tobias's 1922 passport; the Memphis household of 1910 — Antonio, Bertha, Pietro, Alberts, Aurora, Alba, six people on consecutive lines; a Detroit household of 1930 — Domme, Augusta, Ann, Irene, John, Joseph, six more.* ⚠ Two probate files, and this archive did not know they existed. *`AU/VICTORIA/WILLSPROBATE/000697550` — Zdrovko de Franceski, Victoria, 1980. `AU/VICTORIA/WILLSPROBATE/001185884` — Rosa Defranceski, Victoria, 1996.* A probate file names heirs, which is precisely what the Australian branch is missing, and it is a different document from the death registration already sought on item 68. A date that looks like a contradiction and is not. *Findmypast gives Zdravko's Victorian civil death as 1980 and the probate as 1980; this archive has him dying 22 December 1979 at Horsham, documented, and the BillionGraves index agrees at 1979.* A death eight days before the new year is registered and probated in the following one. *The 1979 stands; the 1980 is the registration year and is recorded here so that nobody later «corrects» a right date with it.* One lead nobody has followed. *Five people land in Pennsylvania in 1954 under this spelling — Bosiljka, Branko, Jela, Josip and Mojuil Defranceski — Croatian given names, arriving together, five years after the Australian party of 1949. No US arrival of this family in the 1950s is anywhere in this archive.*

170 distinct newspaper and gazette articles, every spelling, saved to `data/harvest/trove-newspapers.json`. *Held back until now by a wrong assumption: that Trove folds the space in «De Franceschi» the way FamilySearch and Findmypast do. It does not — 13 articles fused, 128 spaced, three in common — so the earlier passes had swept a tenth of the source and called it done.* Five people with addresses and exact dates, out of the Commonwealth Gazette's naturalisation notices, all free: · Cesare De Franceschi — naturalised 28 January 1963, of 497 Wyman Lane, Broken Hill. · Anna Maria De Franceschi — naturalised 28 August 1966, of the same 497 Wyman Lane. *A household, three years apart; the gazette does not say whether wife or daughter.* · Bernardino De Franceschi — naturalised 26 September 1964, of 350 Piper Street, Broken Hill — a second address of the name in the same town. · Albino De Franceschi — naturalised 27 February 1969, of 25 Edgevale Road, Bulleen, Victoria. · Gabriella De Franceschi — executrix of the will of Mario Bazzacco, who died 12 June 1973, NSW Probate Division notice of 29 March 1974. Broken Hill was already on this archive's map — *Giacomo Defranceschi is buried there* — *and it now has two documented addresses and three named people in the 1960s.* No connection to this family is shown for any of them and none is claimed. *Still to do: the 12 Canberra Times «Family Notices» of 1977–1994, the 1954 Alice Springs drowning reported in three papers, and the non-newspaper categories — 176 books under «De Franceschi» that no pass has opened.* --- The twelve «Family Notices» are read, and they put a family on a pin that had nobody on it. «The Canberra Times», 25 September 1982: *«DE FRANCESCHI, Cesira. — Sept 23, Pederobba, Italy. Dearly beloved mother of Cesare, Canberra, Giosue Giacomo and Dino, Broken Hill, Alfonso, Mario and Imelda, Italy. Loved grandmother of their children.»* A mass followed at St Thomas Aquinas, Charnwood on 2 October. Two things this archive already held, and never joined. *Pederobba, in Treviso, is a pin on David's own emigration map — one of the Veneto places marked «High Level of Emigration from Here» — and it had no person attached to it. And Giacomo Defranceschi was a name on a stone in Broken Hill Cemetery with no origin, no parents and no siblings.* One death notice supplies both: the Broken Hill Defranceschi are a Pederobba household, and three brothers of them went to the same mining town. *It also explains the gazettes: Cesare De Franceschi, naturalised at 497 Wyman Lane, Broken Hill in 1963 and living at Canberra by 1982, is the Cesare of the notice; Anna Maria, naturalised from the same address in 1966, is the Anna who appears beside him in notices for the next thirty years.* ⚠ What is NOT published, and needs David's decision. *The remaining notices — engagements, marriages, births and birthdays from 1977 to 1994 — name three generations of living people: Cesare and Anna's children and their children, with years of birth derivable from «Happy 21st» and «Happy 25th» notices, and their suburbs.* None of it is on the site. *The 22 September rule says the living rule is family only and that strangers in public indexes keep their dates — but these are living private individuals in Canberra with no shown connection to this family, and compiling a household of them from birthday notices is a different act from recording a naturalisation.* Held entirely, pending a decision. The 62 pre-1940 articles are read, and 35 of them are one dead painter. *Every «Advertising» hit from 1879 to 1921 is an auction catalogue listing «M. DE FRANCESCHI» among a column of painters — Mariano de Franceschi, b. 1849, who is already on this archive's notables page. The name is in the Melbourne papers for forty years and the man was never in Australia.* Ten real people were under them, now on the roster with no dates, because a newspaper names without ageing: *a Franceski household at Lismore (Dr C. Franceski; a Miss Franceski; Amelia, the music teacher who became Mrs Sullivan; Caesar of North Lismore, persimmons and olives at the 1934 Sydney Royal Show); G. Franceski racing bicycles at Beverley, WA; Annie Amanda Franceski Kean, divorced at Maryborough in 1901; and Rev. Joseph de Franceschi, C.M., a Vincentian at Rio in 1912 and Regional Director for Brazil in 1930 — the first named person of this name this archive has found in Brazil, where its own map has marked a cluster for months with nobody on it.*

Raised by the D'Arcy session on 27 September, verified here, and correct. *The letter is real: `notes/letters/2026-09-17-trove-api-RSref189042.md` in the D'Arcy archive, sent to Trove Support on 20 September 2026, unchanged, at David's instruction. It answers the Library's question about AI use, and it is why the key exists.* What David undertook, in his own words: *«No full text of any article would be retrieved. The request is metadata only — newspaper and gazette titles, their place coverage and their date ranges»*, and that the archive *«would cite Trove as the source of a title and a date range and nothing more»*. What this archive did on 27 September, before anyone had read the letter: · Searched articles, not titles. *The undertaking describes the two titles endpoints; this used `/v3/result` against article records. That is outside the stated scope even when nothing textual comes back.* · Published 53 article snippets — *7,898 characters of newspaper prose — to `data/harvest/trove-newspapers.json`, tracked, committed in `c164d56` and pushed to a public remote.* Removed from the file the same day; *the field is gone and the reason is recorded in the file itself.* · Fetched the full text of about seventy articles from `nla.gov.au` to read the naturalisation notices and family notices. *Not through the API, but «no full text of any article would be retrieved» does not turn on which door it came through.* · Quoted six passages of article prose into the published site data, including the Cesira De Franceschi death notice that is the best single finding of the day. ⚠ Two things are NOT done and are David's, not this session's. 1. *The snippets remain in git history.* *Removing them from `HEAD` does not remove them from `c164d56`, and the remote is public. Rewriting published history is destructive for anyone who has cloned, so it waits on him.* 2. *The six quoted passages are still published.* *Whether citing a 1982 death notice by paper, date and page — and quoting the sentence that names seven children — is «a title and a date range and nothing more» is a question about a commitment David made. This session will not answer it by deleting the finding, and will not answer it by keeping it either.* No further Trove article search or article-text fetching until David decides. *The D'Arcy session's suggestion is the right one: the Library answered four questions in ten days and was not difficult, so if the archives want article search, that is a short note asking for it rather than a quiet widening — and better than having the key pulled from all seven archives at once.* 27 September, later — D'Arcy checked their own archive against this and found the same fault there. *Twenty-seven article-level Trove references: twenty-five are links inside their raw MyHeritage export, other people's tree notes from 2017 and never retrieved by them — but two are in a file that archive writes, and one quotes six words of an 1849 obituary. Pre-key, from the website, not the API, and by the argument this archive accepted, that does not turn on which door it came through.* Both archives are now in front of David with the same question. *They will draft the letter, and their framing is right and is adopted here: it has to be a disclosure, not a request. «May we also search articles» omits that the searching already happened, and the Library would discover that the moment it looked at either repository. Better from us than from them. The draft goes to David and nothing is sent without him.* No Trove call of any kind is made from this archive until David answers — including the titles endpoints, which are the sanctioned use. *Not because titles are in doubt, but because the posture while a breach is on the table is to stop, not to find the part that is still allowed.* The figure going into the letter was re-verified, and the first version of it was unsound. *D'Arcy asked to use the space-folding result as the answer to «why do you want article search». The overlap of 3 had been measured by comparing the 13 fused ids against the first 100 of 128 spaced ids — a hundred of a hundred and twenty-eight, quoted as though it covered them all. The true figure could have been anything from 3 to 13.* It holds: *«De Franceschi» returned 128 and contributed 125 records not already seen, so exactly three were already held, and the id-level test places all three in the fused set.* Two derivations, one answer. *A stronger statement of the same fact, also verified: across the five spellings this family uses, Trove returns 180 hits and 170 distinct records — only ten records in the whole set are reachable by more than one spelling. These are not one corpus seen five ways; they are five nearly disjoint corpora, and a researcher who searches the spelling their own family happens to use sees a fraction of what is there.* The letter names the two archives separately rather than averaging them, which is D'Arcy's call and the right one: *a paragraph that blends a bulk machine retrieval with a six-word phrase from a person record invites the reader to assume the worse of both.* *It is at `notes/letters/2026-09-27-trove-disclosure-RSref189042.md` in their repository, with the do-nothing-and-narrow alternative beside it, and goes nowhere without David.* ⚠ 29 September 2026 — David: «not sending letters yet.» This item waits on that decision and is not to be raised again until he lifts it. *Recorded once, here, so no session re-opens it by suggesting the letter afresh.* --- ⚠ 29 September 2026 — David has answered the second question: «keep the six quoted passages published.» *This archive put the question to him and declined to answer it either way — «this session will not answer it by deleting the finding, and will not answer it by keeping it either». He has answered it. The six passages stay.* *Among them the Cesira De Franceschi death notice, the best single finding of that day, and the sentence in it that names seven children.* Recorded as his decision, because it is one. *The undertaking to the National Library was given in his name and in his words; whether a 1982 death notice cited by paper, date and page falls inside «a title and a date range and nothing more» is his call to make and he has made it.* No session is to re-open it or quietly narrow the quoting on its own initiative. ⚠ ONE QUESTION REMAINS OPEN, and it is the other one. *The 53 article snippets are still in git history — 7,898 characters, in commit `c164d56`, on a public remote. Removing them from `HEAD` did not remove them from the commit. That is untouched and undecided, and it is destructive to fix, so it waits on him.* And nothing is sent. *Per the standing instruction of the same day, the disclosure letter stays drafted and held.*

There is a pier in the port of Rijeka called «De Francescijev gat», and this archive does not know who he was. What it is. *[Arca Adriatica](https://arcaadriatica.eu/?pr=i&id=13548), entry 13548 — «Pristanište Zichy / De Francescijev gat», «Pier Zichy / Pier de Franceschy».* A stone-block pier in the Rijeka port basin, between the Istrian pier to the east and the Vienna pier to the west: *east face 150 m, west face 134 m, south face 80 m, about 6 m alongside, with stairs down to the water and rail-mounted cranes — a 300 kN heavy-lift on the east side, two 30 kN mobile cranes on the west.* It is working port infrastructure, not a monument. What the source is. *Arca Adriatica is a virtual museum of Adriatic maritime heritage built under an EU Interreg Italy–Croatia project — Primorje-Gorski Kotar County, Malinska-Dubašnica, the Kvarner County Tourist Board, the House of Batana at Rovinj, Cervia, Cesenatico, San Benedetto del Tronto, CIHEAM Bari and Ca' Foscari University of Venice.* An institutional register, not a hobby page — and it classifies the pier as immovable material cultural property. ⚠ What this archive already had, and what it still lacks. *This is not new: /searched/ has carried it since September under «Defranceschi bridge, Rijeka», which established that there is no bridge — there is a pier, formerly Mol Zichy, and two things the register itself does not say:* the first iron-and-concrete building in the port went up on it in 1882, and the first electric light in Rijeka was lit on it — *by Zipernowsky, with lamps borrowed from the Torpedo Factory.* What no source says is who the De Franceschi was. *Until today that question sat in a search log with no worklist row behind it, which is why it has not moved.* Searched 28 September 2026 and nil, with the terms named: *on the [Portal Stare hrvatske novine](http://dnc.nsk.hr/Newspapers/Search.aspx) — `Franceschijev` → 0, `Francescijev` → 0, `molo De Franceschi` → 0. `Zichy` → 1025, but that is the Hungarian magnate family in political news and not the pier.* The portal's runs mostly end about 1925, so if the renaming is Italian-era or post-1945 it would not be there at all. The shape of the question. *«De Francescijev» is an Italian surname put into a Croatian possessive — a name inherited and adapted, not one coined in Croatian. That points at the name arriving before the Croatian period, i.e. under Hungarian Fiume (when it was Zichy) or Italian Fiume, 1924–45.* ⚠ A third candidate, found the same afternoon — and it was already in this archive's own files. **Ferencz Defranceschi, *révkapitány* — port captain — in the service of the Fiume Maritime Authority, to 1857.** *The Hungarian parliamentary pension schedule of 1872 credits him with 42 years, 10 months and 5 days of public service and a pension of 1,050 forints from 1857, which puts him into state service about 1814; the later accounts style him ***m. kir.* révkapitány**, Royal Hungarian.* **His daughter Francziska was still drawing a 65-forint orphan's *kegydíj* in 1900. Why this is the strongest of the three.** *A pier in Fiume harbour is port infrastructure, and the man it honours would most naturally be a port official of Fiume — not an Istrian historian and not an unidentified shipowner. Ferencz is a documented port captain of that exact authority, serving through the decades before the harbour was rebuilt, and the pier's own Hungarian-era name, Mol Zichy, sits in the same administration.* ⚠ And it is still not evidence. *No source yet found connects Ferencz to this pier or to any pier. The case is entirely circumstantial — the right office, the right port, the right era — and this archive has spent today learning what happens when proximity is mistaken for proof. (open, and the likeliest of three.) The uncomfortable part. *Ferencz has been on /rijeka/ since 13 September. The pier has been on /namesakes/ for as long. Nobody put them in the same sentence, because the question lived in a search log and the answer lived in a cluster file — the same failure this session has now met three times in one day.* Two further hypotheses, neither adopted. · Carlo de Franceschi (1809–1893), the Istrian historian and politician — *the most celebrated bearer of the name in the region, and exactly the sort of figure Italian Fiume named civic features after.* Against it: he is an Istrian public man, not a Fiume port figure, and a working cargo pier is an odd memorial for a historian. · A Fiume port or shipping De Franceschi — *this archive holds 117 people of the name at Rijeka/Fiume, and item 143 is already trying to sort two of them out.* Against it: none of them is yet shown to be prominent enough. What would settle it, in order of cheapness: 1. When was it renamed? *A pier does not change its name silently. Rijeka port authority chronologies and the city's street-and-quay renaming decrees would date it, and the date alone would choose between Hungarian, Italian and Yugoslav naming conventions.* 2. Državni arhiv u Rijeci — *the city archive, which the September note already said «would settle it».* 3. Italian-era Fiume directories and the port's own 1924–45 plans, where an Italian «Molo De Franceschi» would be printed in full. ⚠ And a caution worth keeping. *A landmark carrying the surname is not evidence of this family. The archive keeps /namesakes/ precisely for bearers of the name who are nobody's ancestor, and this pier belongs there until a document ties it to somebody.* --- 28 September 2026, later — worked, and the leading candidate demoted. The pier now has a construction file: *it belongs to Antal Hajnal's western-shore programme for the Hungarian royal port office — «Istarsko, Bečko, Budimpeštansko i Praško pristanište te De Francheschijev i Visinov gat» — four wharves named for places, two gats named for people. Warehouse 17 on the Visinov gat is 1906–07, by Ferenc Pfaff. ⚠ The city's page does not say who either man was.* ⚠ And Ferencz got weaker. *The 1848 Hungarian directory has the Fiume harbour captaincy under «Kapitány Sgardelli Alajos» while Defranceschi Ferencz headed the Martinšćica quarantine institute; his «révkapitány» title appears only at his 1857 pensioning, filed under the Fiume Maritime Authority — the authority for the whole Littoral, not a posting. «Port captain of Fiume» is withdrawn as a description, and Hajnal's programme is decades after he retired.* Not eliminated; no longer comfortable. Hungaricana nil on five pier terms, controls passing — *listed in Searched. Weak evidence either way: it is a portal of salaries, not quaysides.* Next, in order: *Državni arhiv u Rijeci; the city's quay-renaming decrees; the Italian-era port plans 1924–45. The Lučka uprava chronology returned HTTP 520 and should be retried.* Lučka uprava retried — nil, and the route is now exhausted. *520 to a fetcher, fine in a browser. The whole chronology 1717–2025 names no pier of the Hungarian era; the first quay named is Orlandov gat, 2013.* Two dates gained: 1867 *(the basin begun — ten years after Ferencz retired)* and 1941–45 *(«porušila sve vezove» — every berth destroyed, rebuilt 1950, which is a natural renaming moment and fits the Croatian possessive «De Francescijev»).* ⚠ That sits against the City of Rijeka attributing the name to Hajnal's Hungarian programme; neither is discarded. Remaining, now the shortest list it has ever been: *Državni arhiv u Rijeci; the city's quay-renaming decrees; the Italian-era port plans 1924–45.*

«Every piece of your work is telling a story about the Defranceschi families and lines, so every new finding needs to be incorporated into that story — otherwise we are here for nothing.» *David, 28 September 2026. He should not have had to say it, and the number proves it.* `scripts/check-story.py` counts it: of 158 searches recorded as hits, 44 point only at logs** — at /searched/, /worklist/ or /corrections/, and never at a person, a line, a household or a topic page.* Twenty-eight per cent of this archive's findings never reached a reader. They are not trivial ones. *Among them: the Wales Roman Catholic marriage that gave this family a Cosulich; the Chicago and Memphis households; Arolsen's War Time Card File; the Crikvenica marriages of 1895 and 1899 and Anna Kalanj's whole household; Fiume baptisms and burials of 1757 and 1772–74; the Svetvinčenat index read end to end; and 2,251 index rows swept and joined by household. Every one of those is a story someone did the work for and nobody told. The distinction the script enforces. *A log is a receipt — what was searched, what was fixed, how. A story page is what a reader reads. A person page counts as story, but a finding that lives only on one person's page has not been told either, because nobody browses the roster looking for it.* What to do, and it is not one job. *Work the list from the top: for each orphaned hit, either add an `ev` link to the page where its story is already told, or — where no such page exists — write the paragraph. The second is the real work and the reason this is a worklist item rather than a patch.* ⚠ The check is wired into the gate as a speaker, not a blocker. *It prints the count on every build and fails only under `--strict`. Forty-four pre-existing orphans must not be allowed to block a commit, or the first thing anyone does is stop running the gate — but the number is now in front of whoever builds, and it should only ever go down.* --- 28 September 2026, the same day — worked, and the count is zero. **Forty-four became zero in one pass, and the shape of the work is worth recording: it was mostly *linking*, not writing. | group | n | what it needed | |---|---|---| | Svetvinčenat | 7 | links only** — the index reading, Anzoletta, the 1780 households were *already* in the narrative | | Fiume / Kastav | 13 | links and a paragraph — the households were on /rijeka/, the stories behind them were not | | Crikvenica | 6 | links to the Crikvenica household | | Diaspora & Findmypast | 6 | links to /diaspora/ and /at-sea/ | | DNA, live tree, Arolsen | 5 | links to /dna/, /live-tree/, /pfullingen/ | | Households corpus, NSK | 2 | links to /households/ and /lines/ | | internal audits | 3 | exempted, explicitly | ⚠ The one paragraph that had to be written was the Kvarner's. *Fourteen September searches went to the Fiume film and produced Valentino's household — ten children, five buried — and none of what made it interesting had been told: that a plate settled the surname where the index wrote it a dozen ways; that four openings were read at dates no index reaches, one giving Ignatio Defranceschi, a man the index never produced; that 1757 took Maria and raised the question Aloysia's burial answered; and that at one font stood the wife of the Captain of Kastav, which is not where a labouring household's godparents come from. That is now on /rijeka/. And the check learned something. *Three rows were audits of this archive's own data — a place string tested against its province, an evidence file checked for orphans — not findings about the family. Their honest home is /method/, which is a log by design. They now carry `internal: true` and a stated reason, and the check exempts them and says how many it exempted, so the exemption is somebody's decision rather than a silent hole in the count.* The number to watch is printed by the gate on every build. *It is 0. It should never rise without a reason written down.*

David, 29 September: «what do we know about our core maternal lines? add to your worklist to create them their own family pages». **The direct line has six wives, and the front page says the same thing under five of them: *«no archive of her own line yet»*.** *That sentence is the archive admitting a gap in its own shop window.* | gen | she | born | whose ground | |---|---|---|---| | 2 | Francisca Salomon | 17 March 1797 | this archive | | 3 | Maria née Fernasar | 17 October 1832 | this archive | | 4 | Anna Kalanj | 3 January 1864, Klenovica in the Vinodol | ⚠ already has a page — [the Blažević Archive's](https://daviddef.github.io/TheBlazevic/kalanj/) | | 5 | Ursula, born Kovačina | about 1890 | this archive | | 6 | Hedviga, born Blažević | withheld | [the Blažević Archive's](https://daviddef.github.io/TheBlazevic/) — the join only | | 7 | Cheryl Anne, née Lerena | living | another session's — «Lerena Family Research»; leave it | So three pages are this archive's to build: Salomon, Fernasar, Kovačina. *The other three are already somebody's, and building them here is how an estate ends up with two versions of one woman — the rule this worklist already set for Hedviga.* Done today, because it cost one line: *the Kalanj door on the front page pointed at the Blažević Archive's front page, because the kit derives that door from a surname and the estate's ring only knows whole archives. It now points at the Kalanj page itself.* *(`offpage` on generation 4, passed through in `index.astro`; no kit change.)* ⚠ What this archive actually knows about the three that are its own is thin, and that is the point of the item. · Salomon — *a birth date, 17 March 1797, and nothing else on the page: no parish, no parents, no siblings.* · Fernasar — *17 October 1832, and the surname is rare enough to be worth a name-study of its own.* · Kovačina — *«about 1890», an estimate, against a husband born at Klenovica house 22; her own parish is not established.* And one of them is already entangled with an open question. *Generation 4 carries a flag: the family's genealogy file gives Josip a wife Ana Grubišić 1863–1936 with a photographed gravestone, against the Ana Kalanj the registers name in all four children's entries. A Kalanj page cannot be written without settling that, and the registers govern until a letter says otherwise.* Shape of the work, per surname: *gather every register entry the archive already holds for her; establish her parish; find her parents' marriage; then a page in the shape of the existing family pages, linked from the spine.* Not started. --- 29 September 2026 — David: «I think we should probably have separate pages for each of these women and start researching their families». The pages are built. | line | page | what it holds | |---|---|---| | Salomon | /maternal/salomon/ | a birth date, and a family note now half proved and half withdrawn: the palace is real and dated 1570; the parliament seat was never a Salomon's — it was Carlo De Franceschi's, for Pisino | | Fernasar | /maternal/fernasar/ | rebuilt 29 Sept to the Kosina shape — Tornasar retired, the name placed at Gračišće by two casualty lists, and *fornasâr* given a second leg | | Kalanj | /kalanj/ | the fullest of the five — and building it corrected a misreading carried in fifteen files | | Kovačina | /maternal/kovacina/ | ⚠ every document is German paper made after the war; «about 1890» is an estimate and her birthplace is not established | | Blažević | /senj-line/ | the join only; the family is the Blažević Archive's | A «Maternal lines» group is now in the navigation. *⚠ That is shared ground — the layout and nav belong to another session — changed on David's explicit request and flagged in the commit.* ⚠ What these pages are not. *They are frames with the evidence that exists, and each says plainly how thin that is. No research has been done into any of the three new families yet. The next step is the same for Salomon and Fernasar — the Gračišće registers, which are not on FamilySearch and need a letter to DAPA or Poreč — and for Kovačina it is the unread CM/1 file 32110000 058.158, «and of further persons».*

The Yugoslav victims' census names a man born in this archive's origin parish who died in a German camp, and the archive cannot yet say who he was. What is documented. *«Anton Defrančeški, father Anton, born 1909, born and resident at Gologorica in the opština of Pazin, Croat, died 15 July 1944 at Dachau, in a camp» — Museum of Genocide Victims, Belgrade, record 2462025028.* (doc.) Two questions, and they are cheap. 1. Is he in Arolsen? *⚠ This archive searched Arolsen on 16 September and found 79 records of the name while looking for somebody else. Arolsen holds the Dachau registers. A man who died in that camp on a stated date should be findable there, and his Arolsen file would carry a prisoner number, a transport, and very often a next of kin — which is exactly what the victims' census does not give.* This is the single highest-value follow-up on the list. 2. Is he ours? *The Gologorica–Gračišće line holds the household the direct line comes out of. His father was Anton too. The test is the Gologorica and Gračišće baptisms around 1909, which are on film and which this archive can read — the same way the Svetvinčenat marriages were read.* Until that is done he stays on the line and off the tree. ⚠ And a caution. *A surname in a victims' index is not a relative. This archive keeps /namesakes/ for exactly that reason, and the honest outcome here may be that he belongs there.* --- 29 September 2026 — question 1 answered, and the answer is no. He is not in Arolsen, under `Defranceschi` (38 people), `Defranceski` (79) or `Defrancesco` (8). *None is born in 1909 at an Istrian place.* ⚠ Getting there meant disproving a match that looked perfect — *«DEFRANCESCHI, ANTONIO, 31 January 1909, prisoner 8165», which turned out to be an ITS cross-reference card to a file under DEFRANCESCO: born at Moncalvo in Piedmont, died at Dachau 7 February 1945, not 15 July 1944.* The disproof is on his page and the rule it earned is in the method. Question 2 is untouched and this item stays open for it. *Whether he descends from the Gologorica household needs the Gračišće and Gologorica baptisms of about 1909, which are on film and readable the same way the Svetvinčenat marriages were.* That is now the whole of the item. ⚠ And the search found a Vodnjan household for somebody else's item: *the IRO CM/1 Italy files hold Giuseppe b. 1904 at Dignano, Giovanna née Bortolussi b. 1911 at Dignano, and three children — the town the two men found yesterday came from.* --- ⚠ 29 September, later — question 2 cannot be done from a desk, and this item's own instruction was wrong. The correction first. *This item said the baptisms were «on film». They are not — `waypoints.json` records Gologorica, Gračišće and Pićan as absent from FamilySearch's Croatian collection, walked in September. The route was named without opening a file this archive already held. On /corrections/.* The book, named exactly: DAPA no. 1166 — Gologorica, MKR, 1880–1948, held at BA Poreč, digitised. *One volume covers 1909.* The errand, ready to send. *Biskupijski arhiv (Poreč-Pula diocese), Dobrilina 3, 52440 Poreč — ppbarhiv@gmail.com, archivist Branka Poropat, +385 52 635 418.* > Ask for: the baptism entry of Anton Defrančeški / Defranceschi, born 1909 at Gologorica, father Anton, from MKR Gologorica 1880–1948 (DAPA inv. 1166) — with the mother's name and maiden surname, the house number, and the godparents. *That is what decides whether he belongs to the Gologorica household this archive holds.* *DAPA's own page says it declines open-ended genealogical research but accepts requests carrying name, approximate period and place — this has all three — and this family has used DAPA successfully twice, in April and June 2021, at 117 and 124 kuna including overseas postage.* ⚠ Blocked, and named: *Hrčak serves a «Confirm you're not a robot» check, so the Trogrlić parish chronicle 1892–1918 — which covers these exact years — was not fetched. This archive does not work around bot checks. One click for a person.* ⚠ 29 September 2026 — David: «not sending letters yet.» This item waits on that decision and is not to be raised again until he lifts it. *Recorded once, here, so no session re-opens it by suggesting the letter afresh.* --- 30 September 2026 — a possible SECOND ROUTE to question 2, which needs no letter. *The letter above stays where David left it and is not re-raised.* This item's only route to the 1909 baptism is the Poreč diocesan archive, because Gologorica is absent from FamilySearch. But the other collection had never been asked. The Croatian State Archives' microfilm collection HR-HDA-1448 — the one the Brinje work used — lists GOLOGORICA as a parish, and GRAČIŠĆE under four name forms. What it holds for them is unknown: the search would not run, and this archive does not claim a nil from a tool whose failures look exactly like absences. Recorded as a lead to retry, not as a finding. *If Gologorica's films reach 1909, question 2 can be answered from a desk.*

The baptism of Anna Kalanj says where her people came from, and this archive had never read the phrase. > *«Josephus Kalanj et Rosalia nata Perković ejus uxor, Brinjensis Parochiæ ruricolæ»* — country people of the parish of Brinje, at Kljenovica house 22, entry 2 of 1864, Ledenice. *(doc.)* Brinje is inland, up behind the coast — *so the Kalanj were not Vinodol people; they had come down to Klenovica from the hills, exactly as this archive's own line came down from Gračišće a generation later.* ⚠ THAT WAS TRUE WHEN THIS ROW WAS WRITTEN AND IS NOT TRUE NOW — see the addition of 29 September below. The line that follows is kept as it stood. ⚠ And both family archives are stopped at the same door. *[The Blažević Archive](https://daviddef.github.io/TheBlazevic/kalanj/) — which holds 215 Kalanj — calls Brinje «the single largest hole in this family» and records that «not one page of its register has been opened».* Neither archive has opened it. What it would answer: *Rosalia née Perković's people, who are in no archive at all; whether Luka Kalanj 1859–1944 is Anna's brother; and how far back the Kalanj go before the move to the shore.* First step: *establish whether the Brinje registers are filmed — the archive's own waypoints walk of the Croatian collection is the place to look — and if not, which archive holds them.* Not started. ⚠ 29 September 2026 — David: «not sending letters yet.» This item waits on that decision and is not to be raised again until he lifts it. *Recorded once, here, so no session re-opens it by suggesting the letter afresh.* --- ✅ THE FIRST STEP IS DONE, 29 September 2026: Brinje is filmed, and the film starts too late. HR-HDA-1448, the Croatian State Archives' supplementary microfilm collection — the same one the Crikvenica page already names — holds Brinje as five entries and no more: births 1888–1892, 1893–1897, 1897–1900; marriages 1888–1899; deaths 1888–1899. Reels ZM-34C/681 and ZM-34C/682, topographic marks M-1278 and M-1279. All transcripts. None digitised. Anna was born in 1864. The films cannot reach her, her parents' marriage, or her siblings. *So the cheap route is closed and the question is now a different one: where are the pre-1888 Brinje books?* Three candidates, none asked: the parish office at Brinje, the diocesan archive of Senj-Modruš, and the Državni arhiv u Gospiću, which covers Lika-Senj county and whose own registers are said to begin in the second half of the eighteenth century. ⚠ Nine neighbouring parishes were queried and all nine results were thrown away. Jezerane, Letinac, Stajnica, Prozor, Krivi Put, Vodoteč, Ogulin, Modruš and Crikvenica all returned «Nema zapisa» — *and so did BRINJE, which holds five rows, when re-run the same way.* Setting that search box from script does not commit the value to the server, and the empty result is identical to a real nil. The control caught it. Those nine parishes are untested, not empty, and the trap is written up in the search log so the next session does not repeat it. --- ⚠ 29 September 2026 — CORRECTED THE SAME DAY IT WAS WRITTEN. The door was opened a fortnight ago, by the other archive, and this row did not know. David: *«Have you looked at the Blažević's session? It's been documenting the Brinje volumes and researching Kalanj in Brinje for a while now.»* It has. · 15 September — that session located both films: DGS 5498262 (*Rođeni 1888–1900, Vjenčani 1888–1899*, items 1–4 of roll 2121763) and DGS 5498263 (*Umrli 1888–1899*). Both begin at item 1, so both are reachable by film number. · 20 September — measured that Brinje has nothing indexed at all, for any event, under Kalanj or Marić. The village is reachable only by opening the film. · 29 September — images 493 to 622 of 693 read, waypoint 9R26-82S. Found: Kalanj Niko, of Brinje house 231, son of Juro; Kalanj Mijo, of house 249, born about 1838; Kalanj Mate as witness; Perković Đuso, daughter of Perković Jozo; and seven Borić men across four Brinje hamlets. *None yet tied to Anna's household.* So this row's «first step» had been taken, and taking it again produced the same answer. That is the fourth repeat of this shape today, and the first across archives rather than within one. *The working rules say to grep this archive's logs before claiming a find; they do not say to check the sibling archives, and on this evidence they should.* What is genuinely this archive's to do, and nobody is doing it. Every filmed Brinje book — on either road — begins in 1888. Anna was born 3 January 1864 and her parents married before that. Her baptism, their marriage and her brothers and sisters are in pre-1888 originals that are on no film. The HDA copies are marked PRIJEPIS, transcripts, which says the originals are still with an institution: the parish office at Brinje, the Senj-Modruš diocesan archive, or the Državni arhiv u Gospiću. None has been asked. That is the row now. --- ⚠ 30 September 2026 — THE DATE WALL IS EXPLAINED, and it is a frontier. *First, what is not this archive's: the Blažević session is reading the Brinje registers right now, image by image — through the marriage book and into the Rođeni volumes, with Kalanj households emerging at houses 231, 249 and 118/189. That ground is theirs and is not touched here. `whoelse.sh` confirms no sibling archive has raised the Military Frontier, the 1882 boundary or DAGS-109 for Brinje.* Every Brinje series begins at the same moment: HR-HDA-1448 at 1888 (and all of it *prijepis*, transcripts); Gospić's HR-DAGS-109 at 1882, though that collection as a whole runs from 1793. Brinje was in the MILITARY FRONTIER. *The Ministry of War's authority ended 1 August 1881; administration passed to the Croatian provincial government on 1 January 1882.* The registers begin where Brinje stopped being a regiment and became a county — which is why two unrelated holdings land on the same year. Anna was born 1864, so her baptism is in Military Frontier–era books, eighteen years out of reach of both archives. *Three candidates remain and none has been asked: the parish office at Brinje, the diocesan archive of Gospić-Senj (formerly Senj-Modruš), or they did not survive.* That is what this item now is. ⚠ And two catalogues are gone. *`arhinet.arhiv.hr` (ARHiNET, also called NAIS) does not resolve — NXDOMAIN, confirming Record Atlas. `hais.arhiv.hr` does resolve, to 161.53.80.20, but serves nothing on either port 80 or 443. ⚠ This item first called HAIS ARHiNET's «successor»; that came from the atlas's note and not from anything checked here, and is withdrawn — the network state is established, the succession is not. And www.arhiv.hr is a different machine, 161.53.80.7, and is not the fonds register: it is the archive's own site plus the one live database. Search engines still index ARHiNET pages; the links are dead. Hrčak returned HTTP 418 to the study of the HDA's register collection, which is its bot rejection and was not worked around.* --- ✅ 30 September 2026 — THE QUESTION IS ANSWERED, and the answer is a law. *David cleared Hrčak's bot check so the inventory of HR-HDA-883 could be read — Angelika Milić, Arhivski vjesnik 60 (2017), 251–311.* > «Odlukom Ministarstva unutrašnjih poslova NRH od 13. svibnja 1949. određeno je da se sve matične knjige s upisom do 1860. predaju na čuvanje nadležnim arhivima» — *and the 1946 law gave registers from 1860 to the matični uredi, «koje su bile potrebne u radu državnim matičnim uredima».* Up to 1860 → the archives. From 1860 → left with the registry office. Anna was born 3 January 1864. *Her baptism was never going to be in a state archive's collection. It is not lost; it was left where it was being used.* Confirmed on Brinje's doorstep: the collection holds the Senj-Modruš diocese, and its Lika parishes stop exactly at the line — Gospić 1789→1858/1859, Senj 1678→1858. *And Brinje does not appear in it at all.* So the item changes shape. *Not «open Brinje» but: the matični ured / parish at Brinje for 1864, and the Gospić-Senj diocesan archive for the pre-1860 books that reached no state archive. No letter is drafted or sent — David's instruction stands.* *The inventory also yielded 2,503 volumes across 357 parishes, 1585–1947, catalogued for Record Atlas as provider `hda-883`; the extract was deliberately not committed there because its licence gate refused a dataset whose publisher states no licence.*

David, 29 September 2026: «what research can we do in books and deep research for those families?» Worked through, family by family, with what was tested today. SALOMON — the most tractable of the four, and half of it moved today. · ✅ The palace is real: the Salamon palace at Gračišće, sixteenth century, dated 1570, Gothic bifore on the first floor. *(doc for the building; the source gives no family history.)* · ✅ SETTLED THE SAME DAY, and the answer was no. *David downloaded the roll of the 422 deputies himself — the mechanical block was on this session, not on the document.* There is no Salomon in it, and the negative is properly made: *437 lines, 65 surnames beginning with S, zero matches for Salomon or Salamon in any spelling, with the control passing.* And a Defranceschi IS in it: «*Defranceschi · Karl · k.k. Rathsprotokollist · Pisino · Küstenland*» — Carlo De Franceschi, and the roll gives the constituency his page never had. *The family remembered a seat in the Vienna parliament correctly for a century and a half and attached it to the wife's people. The correction is on /corrections/.* · Bertoša, «Gologorički De Franceschi», 1985 — *76 pages, «the most important single thing still unread» by this archive's own reckoning. Not online. A Croatian library or ILL.* · The palace as a listed monument: *Croatian conservation literature — the Seget precedent, where Puhmajer's monograph came free from the Ministry of Culture, is the model.* FERNASAR — a book could settle this WITHOUT a register. · ✅ DONE 29 September 2026, and the prediction in it was wrong. *Both national surname databases were asked — the Croatian 2011 census and Cognomix's 180,000 Italian surnames — and neither Fernasar nor Tornasar exists in either, so no atlas of the present can choose between them; the palaeography was not decided from the armchair.* What it did do is remove Tornasar's last support: printed in no issue of anything, borne by nobody. *And it put a second leg under the* *fornasâr* *etymology — Fornasar is real: 25 Italian families, 8 of them in Friuli-Venezia Giulia and 4 in the Veneto.* The terms tried, with controls, are in the search log; the page is /maternal/fernasar/. *What is still open is the ink: her own baptism of 17 October 1832 as an image.* KOVAČINA — the document is already identified and unread. · Arolsen CM/1 `3.2.1.1, ref 32110000 058.158` — *«Personal file of DEFRANCESKI, PETAR… and of further persons». «Further persons» is where a wife's birthplace gets written down, and this file has never been opened.* Free, online, no letter required. KALANJ / PERKOVIĆ — both archives stopped at one door. · Brinje — *item 161. Neither this archive nor Blažević has opened a page of it.* · *Rosalia née Perković is in no archive at all.* ⚠ What «deep research» would and would not help with. *Three of these four are not questions the open web can answer — they need a register, a subscription archive, or a physical book. The exceptions are exactly two: the Reichstag list (a PDF that wants opening) and the Fernasar/Tornasar surname question (a reference-book question). Those two are worth a research pass; the rest want letters and a library.* Not started.

Found while building the Kalanj page: this archive writes markdown tables into its data and most of its pages cannot render them. ⚠ The symptom. *`|---|` printed literally on /lines/, /corrections/, /method/, /worklist/, /people/ and twenty-odd person pages. 152 table blocks are written into the data — 97 in `searched.json` alone, across many sessions — and they have never displayed as tables.* Half-fixed on 29 September. *Table support was added to the shared `site/src/lib/md.js`, and /searched/ now renders 59 tables where it printed pipes. ⚠ *That file is shared ground by `whose.sh`'s reckoning — it falls through to the catch-all — and the change was made and flagged.* ⚠ The root cause is bigger, and it is the real item. *There is not one renderer. There are twenty-five: `1948`, `at-sea`, `carlo`, `changes`, `cheryl-lerena`, `corsica`, `corrections`, `dna`, `errands`, `gaps`, `fiume-1626`, `liznjan`, `method`, `imperial`, `julius`, `photograph-these`, `register`, `rijeka`, `marriages`, `tree`, `trentino`, `vodnjan`, `the-eleven` and the `Cluster` and `Household` components each define their own `const md = (s) => …`, while 42 pages import the shared one.* So a fix to the renderer reaches 42 pages and misses 25. *Every local copy has drifted separately; this is why links printed as literal brackets for a year and why tables print as pipes now. The same bug has to be fixed twenty-six times or once.* The work: *replace each local `md` with an import of `site/src/lib/md.js`, page by page, checking each page's output before and after.* ⚠ Not a five-minute job and not one to do at the end of a long session — *several of those pages pass extra transforms (`based`, `link`) around their local renderer, and those have to be preserved.* Not started. --- 29 September 2026 — fourteen of twenty-five done, and the other eleven are blocked on the data, not the code. ⚠ The refactor turned out to have a fork in it that the item had not seen. *The local renderers do not escape; the shared one does. And twenty data files contain intentional raw HTML — `<span class="chip inf">`, `<a href="…">`, `<em>` — which renders today because those pages do not escape. Swapping them blind would have turned that markup into visible tag text.* So the pages were split by their data, and only the safe half converted: | | | |---|---| | converted | trentino · at-sea · the-eleven · vodnjan · marriages · fiume-1626 · imperial · carlo · cheryl-lerena · errands · julius · photograph-these · rijeka · Cluster | | blocked on data | changes · 1948 · gaps · register · corrections · corsica · liznjan · tree · dna · method | Verified by diffing the built HTML of every converted page before and after. *All thirteen diffs are improvements or cosmetic: `errands` changed single to double quotes on a style attribute; `rijeka` had been printing literal asterisks and now renders italics; the rest are byte-identical or near. No escaped-tag leakage on any of them.* `mdps()` was added to the shared lib — *a paragraph break carrying a style — because four pages kept a private copy of the whole renderer purely to get `<p style="margin-top:12px">`.* ⚠ What is left is a DATA job, not a code job. *The eleven remaining pages cannot move until the raw HTML in their data is migrated to markdown — a raw anchor tag becoming a markdown link, and the `<span class="chip">` markers becoming something the renderer knows. That is the real remainder of this item, and it also fixes a latent bug found on the way: `method.json` contains `<em-ić</em`, malformed HTML that has been shipping as-is.* ⚠ And the unification turned up two more faults in passing, both now fixed. · *`u()` could be applied twice.* *It prefixed unconditionally, so an already-based path came back as `/TheDefranceski/TheDefranceski/…`. It is now idempotent — a prefix function that cannot safely be applied twice is a trap.* · *The kit's `Errands` component bases hrefs itself*, *with an unguarded `href="/` replace — so prose handed to it must arrive unbased or it doubles. Seven links on /errands/ broke the moment the shared renderer started basing its own. `mdUnbased()` and `mdpsUnbased()` were added for exactly this case, and the kit was not touched.* *Both were caught by the gate's link checker, which is the whole reason it exists.*

David asked for a run through the main pages on mobile and web. All 98 were swept at 375px and 1440px, in iframes, measuring `scrollWidth` against the viewport. ✅ Desktop is clean: 0 of 98 overflow at 1440px. Mobile started at 15 of 98 and is now 8. *Fixed: `/errands/` (359px over), `/live-tree/` (204), `/sources/` (160 → 8), `/findmypast/`, `/corrections/`, `/changes/`, `/old-site/`, `/method/`.* What the fixes were, and one thing worth knowing. *Wide tables were never in a `.scroll` container — including the tables this archive started rendering the same day, which is how a content fix became a layout bug. And the long unbreakable tokens carried `white-space:nowrap`, against which `overflow-wrap` is powerless.* ⚠ The nowrap rules are Astro SCOPED styles from kit components — *`.er-tag[data-astro-cid-…]`, a class-plus-attribute selector that outranks anything this stylesheet can write, in a kit that belongs to another session.* So `!important` is used, deliberately, in that one media query, and the reason is written above it. ⚠ And one of the fixes made things worse before it made them better. *`table thead, table tbody { width: max-content }` is a standard responsive-table trick and it added overflow here — `/corsica/` went to 310px over. Reverted. So did forcing `.num` to wrap: `/method/` went from 25px over to 129px, because a reference number that breaks mid-digit is not an improvement. Both are recorded rather than quietly dropped.* The eight that remain, with what is known about each: | page | over | what is wide | |---|---|---| | `/corsica/` | 310 | a `TBODY` — the hand-written table is not in a `.scroll` | | `/cheryl-lerena/` | 252 | nothing over 8px wide was found — the cause is not an element box | | `/worklist/` | 163 | same: no wide element found | | `/households/` | 50 | same | | `/` | 33 | the sovereignty `svg`, min-width 940px | | `/crikvenica-house/` | 9 | a `TBODY` | | `/sources/` | 8 | a `TBODY` | | `/who/giovanni-defranceschi/` | 3 | a `THEAD` | ⚠ The interesting ones are the three where no wide element could be found. *`scrollWidth` exceeds the viewport but every box measures inside it — which points at a margin, a negative offset or a transform rather than a wide child. The `.bleed` and `.scroll` breakout rules use `margin-left:50%; transform:translateX(-50%)`, and that is the first thing to test.* Not started. --- ✅ CLOSED 29 September 2026 — 0 over, at three widths. And the number above was wrong when it was written, which is the more useful half of this. The preview server serves a *staged copy* of `dist`, and it had not been re-staged after the rebuild, so «15 down to 8» was measured partly against older output. Every figure below is from a build staged immediately before the sweep. | swept | 375px | 768px | 1280px | |---|---|---|---| | 210 top-level, second-level, all 50 place pages | 0 | 0 | 0 | | 496 `/person/` and `/who/` pages | 0 | — | — | Four faults, each found by hiding elements one at a time until the page stopped overflowing, then measuring min-content of what was left. · The home page, 33px. A cross-archive door label *I* had written that morning — 49 characters in a kit component whose `.dsc-door` is `nowrap`. Every other label on the page is 21–34. The kit was not at fault and was not touched; the label was shortened. · Five `/people/` biographies, up to 505px. The `.rec` grid's third cell is built for a short mono note; these pages put sentences in it. *«Lamberta carries his own mother's name.»* is 642px of nowrap. · Six `/who/` pages, 14–35px — caused by my own first attempt at the line above. Two unrelated components share the class name `.rec`, and an unscoped rule collapsed the other one's second track to 0px. Scoped to `.rec-bio`. · `/places/vizinada/`, 5px. The mobile rule used a bare `1fr`, whose implicit minimum is min-content, so the single column sized itself to 362px inside a 324px box. Now `minmax(0,1fr)`. Still over at 320px: the home page, by 8px. Below the 375px target and recorded rather than claimed as clean.

✅ ANSWERED THE SAME DAY IT WAS RAISED — 30 September 2026. *The test named here was: walk July 1780 and July 1789 in the baptism books, both of which are on the reel. July 1789 has her.* > «Maria Rosa=/lia Defrances=/chi ex Loco», house 36, father «Joh: Baptis[ta]», mother «Catharina Joblich», godmother «Rosalia Baxa uxor Petri ex Lindar» *(ZM34K-214, M01069020)*. 30 September 1826 minus 37y 2m 10d is 20 July 1789, to the day. *So the death on page 3 and this baptism are one woman. The Maria born 20 July 1780 is somebody else and stays unidentified.* *The four roster rows that had grown around her are joined with `sameAs`, and her mother is corrected from Mariana to Catharina Joblich — the story and the plates are on the Gologorica page.*

David, 30 September 2026: «add bakar to our next to read worklist». *Raised the same hour a Bakar woman was documented marrying a Defranceschi of Gologorica.* ⭐ THE NEW REASON. *The Gologorica baptism register, 3 October 1786, enters as godparents* «Joh: Bapt. Defranceschi m.p. · Cath. ejus uxor nata JABLICH ex BUCCARI», *both* Cives Gollogoricenses. Catharina, wife of Joannes Baptista Defranceschi, was born a Jablich of Bakar — a hundred and thirty kilometres and a different sovereignty from the Istrian interior. *She is on the roster; Jablich appears nowhere else in this archive.* *(doc — DAPA ZM34K-214, M01069017.)* ⚠ Bakar is not a new front. It is a front this archive has left half-open, and the pieces have never been put beside each other: | what | where it stands | |---|---| | Bakar parish registers | *pending, never opened, and the family's own recollection points at them* | | FamilySearch, Bakar country | *eight entries*, found only when the sweep was re-run with deep paging — the first run returned one | | An 1849 Bakar baptism | *reads* «Francisci Defranceschi Regii» — *the word that started the royal-office inference, since corroborated on Hungaricana* | | «Stemmi della nobiltà di Buccari», *Bakarski zbornik* 2 (1996) | *pending — fifty-seven pages on the arms of Bakar's patrician houses, and this archive has an arms page resting on a lintel and a stone* | | ANNO, «Defranceschi» + «Buccari» | *blocked* — nine issues named and dated, reader behind a bot check. Not to be worked around. | | «Galeb» and «Kvarner», the two Bakar newspapers | *a genuine nil*, controls passed. Settled; do not re-run. | | British shipping press, «Buccari» | 1,377 articles, all shipping — Bakar had its own standing heading in London from at least the 1860s | What to do, in order: 1. Establish whether the Bakar registers are filmed at all, and by whom — *the HDA supplementary microfilm search answers that question for any Croatian parish, and it has never been asked about Bakar.* Drive the place box through real UI interaction and run a known-positive control first; *script-setting that combo box manufactured nine false nils on 29 September.* 2. Look for Jablich, not only for the surname. *A marriage of a Jablich daughter to a Joannes Baptista Defranceschi, before 1786, is a specific entry in a specific decade — far more findable than a surname sweep.* 3. The *Bakarski zbornik* article, *which is a library request rather than an archive one.* Not started. *No letter is to be sent on this until David lifts the hold.*

David, 30 September 2026: «Have we ever gone through the volosca books?» *The answer is no, and the sharper answer is that this archive already holds the waypoints and has never used them.* `kvarner-books.json` *carries* Volosko (Opatija) *with five films, its* `books` *array empty and its* `why` *blank — nothing read, no reason recorded. Across 474 searches Volosca appears in two, and one of those was written this morning.* | book | waypoint | |---|---| | Births 1791–1831 | `9R28-3YD` | | Births 1831–1886 | `9R28-3Y7` | | Deaths 1792–1831, baptisms 1841/1845/1846 | `9R28-PY8` | | Deaths 1831–1902, 1927 | `9R28-PY7` | | Marriages 1792–1906 | `9R28-3T1` | ⭐ WHY IT MATTERS NOW. *The 1826* status animarum *enters* «Lambertina uxor nata Peschle» *with* «Ex Volosca» *against her — Carlo De Franceschi's mother, and the town every printed life of him names.* ⚠ But the obvious target is not there, and saying so first saves a wasted sitting. *Her birth was established on 30 September as* 17 September 1786 *from the household book. The Volosko births film begins in 1791. Her own baptism is five years before the film starts.* What IS in range, in order of sharpness: 1. The marriage of 3 February 1807 — *Josephus Defranceschi and Lambertina Peschle. Weddings are normally in the bride's parish, and* Marriages 1792–1906 (`9R28-3T1`) covers it. *It would name her father.* This is the one to open first. 2. Alexander Peschle, b. 1803, *son of Mathias Peschle and Justina Jacich — the oldest Peschle this archive holds, and* Births 1791–1831 covers him. 3. Deaths 1792–1831 *for Mathias and Justina's generation.* *Held until the 1826* status animarum *is finished, per the rule adopted the same day: finish the book you opened before opening another.*

David, 1 October 2026: «So Cherbune for the grah family? Would it be worth adding to your worklist the records to search from here». *Yes — and the place is identifiable.* ⭐ Where it came from. *The Gologorica baptism of* Franciscus Antonius Defranceschi, 13 April 1785, house 31 *— son of Joannes Baptista and* Theresia née Grach *— has as godfather* «Archipresbiter GRACH» of «Cherbune». *The mother's own kin, and a churchman: an archpriest in the Grach family was not known here.* *(doc — ZM34K-214, M01069015.)* ⚠ «Cherbune» is NOT Cerovlje. *The same register writes Cerovlje separately and differently —* «Cerougl», «Cerouglie», «Ceroughe», *and the 1826 census has* «In comunitate Corougliensi». «Cherbune» is KRBUNE, *a village at* 45.2569 N, 14.0472 E — *about four kilometres from Gologorica, in the same tight cluster as Gračišće and Cerovlje.* What there is to read, and it is thin. *The [Record Atlas](../Record Atlas) holds* one *collection for Krbune against 22 for Gologorica, 24 for Cerovlje and 32 for Gračišće:* > Births 1803–1869 · Deaths 1803–1870 · Marriages 1803–1870, Roman Catholic, one bound volume. > FamilySearch waypoint `9R2Z-92G`. *Never opened by this archive.* ⚠ And the obvious target is out of range, which is worth saying before anyone sits down to it. *The archpriest stands at the font in* 1785; *the film begins in* 1803. He is eighteen years before it. *What the volume WOULD carry is the generation after him — and a* Marianna Grah, daughter of Mathias and Justina, born 19 September 1834, *is already recorded in the Gologorica census, so the family was still in the district.* Why the Grah matter to this family: *Theresia née Grach is the mother of the* casa 31 *household — one of the two Joannes Baptista houses, now told apart by their wives — and a* Catharina Defranceschi nata Grach *stands godmother in the 1787 baptisms. The Grach have no married-in page.* Order of work: *1. the Krbune volume `9R2Z-92G` for Grah/Grach entries after 1803; 2. Gračišće and Cerovlje, which are better covered and next door; 3. an archpriest is a diocesan record — the Poreč-Pula clergy lists would name him and give his dates.* --- ⭐ 5 October 2026 — KRBUNE WAS A PARISH IN ITS OWN RIGHT, and its priest came to Gologorica. *Folio 119 of the Gologorica baptism book, 1 February 1858 (DAPA* ZM34K-214, *M01069133): the* baptizans *column, which has read* «Petrus Milcetich, Parochus» *for twenty-three years, names for one entry* «Franciscus P— Ad.r PAR. CHERBUNIS» — *the administrator of the parish of Krbune*. Why it matters to this item. *The worry behind worklist 168 was that Krbune's single bound volume might be a fragment, or the place a chapelry of somewhere else — one collection against thirty-two for Gračišće is the kind of imbalance that usually means the records went elsewhere.* *This shows Krbune with its own administrator, standing in for a neighbouring parish.* A parish that lends a priest keeps a register, *and the volume the atlas lists — births, deaths and marriages* 1803–1870 — *is the right book for the place and not somebody else's leavings.* ⚠ The priest's surname is NOT published. *It reads as* Pasnich, Papich *or* Bascich, *and has not been set against the same hand writing any of those elsewhere. A hand is only legible against itself; the office and the parish are plain and carry the point without it.* If it is settled later it is worth having — *a named Krbune administrator of 1858 is a person to ask the Pazin archive about.* ⭐ 5 October 2026, same walk — a second word attached to the Grah. *Folio 123 of the Gologorica baptism book, 20 May 1862 (DAPA* ZM34K-214, *M01069137): the mother is entered* «Mariana Grah» *with* «Missan» *written beneath the surname, and a godmother* «Cathar. Grah» *with* «missan» *beneath hers.* ⚠ Whether «Missan» is a byname or a place is NOT settled here, *and it is claimed as neither.* *This register uses both constructions —* «Flegar alias Jacotich» *and* «Flegar alias Sidre» *for bynames,* «ex Cerouglie» *and* «Ex Parochia Gallignanæ» *for places — and this entry uses neither word, only position.* WHY IT IS RECORDED ANYWAY. *The Grah are the family behind this item, and* *a second word attached to a common surname is exactly what makes one findable in a register*. *If* Missan *is a byname it should recur beside Grah in the Krbune volume; if it is a place it should be identifiable near Krbune.* Either answer is useful and the test is the same: look for the pair, not the surname. ⭐ 5 October 2026, later — FIVE attestations of a Krbune priest, and one of them is NAMED. *Reading the strip at the foot of each page, which this archive had been cropping off, turned up the parish of Cherbune over and over in the* baptizans *column:* | when | frame | who | |---|---|---| | 29 Nov 1832 | M01069106 | «Franciscus Xaverius, Parochus CHERBUNENSIS» | | 19 Feb 1841 | M01069115 | *«ex permissione … Parochus Cherbunensis»* | | 11 Jul 1842 | M01069116 | *«Parochus Cherbunensis»* | | 2 Oct 1848 | M01069123 | «Josephus Dekalice(?), Administrator parochialis CHERBUNES» | | 1 Feb 1858 | M01069133 | *«Franciscus P—, Ad.r Par. Cherbunis»* | *Krbune had a parish priest of its own for at least twenty-six years*, *and he was close enough to Gologorica to baptise there five times over.* Whatever worry remained that its single bound volume might be a fragment is gone. ⚠ Two surnames are offered and neither is settled: *the 1832* Franciscus Xaverius *is a given name with no surname written, and the 1848* Dekalice *has had no second construction. A hand is only legible against itself.* The offices, the parish and the dates are plain and carry the point.

Found on 1 October 2026 while closing gaps in the Gologorica baptism book. *Twice the register is interrupted by a certificate ruled across the page and signed by the rural dean:* > «Revisus in Visitatione decanali die 17ma Julii 1804» — *M. Franciscus Franovich, Canonicus, Regius Parochus et Decanus* > «Revisus et approbatus in Visitatione Decanali 25 Junii 1808» — *Petrus Anicich, Canonicus, Parochus et Decanus* The parish books were inspected and signed off by a dean. *An inspection that signs a book generates a record of its own: visitation protocols name the parish, its priest, its fabric, its souls and often its failings. This archive holds none and did not know to look.* Where they would be. *Gologorica was in the diocese of Pićan (Pedena) until its suppression in 1788, then Poreč-Pula. Visitation records of both are the kind of thing held by the diocesan archive at Poreč — already on the errands list for other reasons — and by the Državni arhiv u Pazinu.* ⭐ 5 October 2026 — four more visitations, one more dean, and the DEANERY'S OWN SEAT. *Walking folios 100–102 of the same book turned up four more certificates ruled across the page, all in one hand and all naming the place:* > «Vidi. PETINAE die 7 Maji 1838» — *Franc. Coverlizza, Decanus* > «Vidi … Petinae die 14 Januarii 1839» — *Coverlizza, Decanus* > «Vidi Petinae die 13 Januarii 1840» — *Coverlizza, Decanus* > «Vidi. Petinae die 15 Januarii 1841» — *Coverlizza, Decanus* *(doc — DAPA* ZM34K-214, *M01069113, M01069114, M01069115.)* ⚠ «Petinae» is PIĆAN — but it is not the only place the dean signs, and an earlier claim here was withdrawn the same day. *A sixth certificate, of* 15 March 1849, *reads* «Vidi. PIZINAE» — PAZIN *(M01069123), the letters unmistakable beside the 1838* «Petinae». *So he signed at Pićan in 1838–1844 and at Pazin in 1849.* Both towns are named here and neither is preferred; *an enquiry should go to whichever archive holds the deanery's papers, and finding that out is part of the item rather than settled by it.* Three named deans to ask about now, *which is far better than a general enquiry:* Franciscus Franovich *(1804),* Petrus Anicich *(1808)* *and* Franciscus Coverlizza *(1838–1841, four inspections in four years — this one was clearly annual).* *No letter to be sent until David lifts the hold.* ⭐ 5 October 2026 — AND THE VISITATION WAS NOT THE ONLY THING THE DEANERY DID. *Folio 98 carries a different certificate entirely:* «Quae copiae collationatae anni 1835 concordant cum hoc originali libro. Ex officio Decanatus, Petinae die 7 Maij 1836.» *(M01069111.)* *The parish copied each year's register and the dean collated the copy against the original.* So a certified duplicate set left this parish annually — *which is a search of its own and may matter more than the visitation protocols do.* ⭐ 5 October 2026, further on — A FOURTH DEAN, and the end of Coverlizza. *The visitation of* 8 January 1867 *(DAPA* ZM34K-214, *M01069145) is signed by a different hand:* «Jac. Stari—, Decanus», *again* «Vidi. Petinae». *He signs again on* 17 January 1868 *(M01069146).* *Franciscus Coverlizza's run therefore stands at 1838–1865 — twenty-eight years and at least ten recorded inspections* *— and a new dean takes over by January 1867.* ⚠ The new dean's surname is NOT published. *It begins* Stari- *and the ending will not resolve —* «-has», «-haz», «-hač» *are all possible, and no second construction of the word has been found.* *A hand is only legible against itself; the given name* Jacobus, *the office and the date are plain and carry the point.* Four named deans to ask about now: Franciscus Franovich *(1804),* Petrus Anicich *(1808),* Franciscus Coverlizza *(1838–1865)* *and* Jacobus Stari— *(1867–1868).* ⭐ 6 October 2026 — THE DEAN SIGNED EVERY BOOK ON ONE VISIT. *The death register carries the same certificate as the baptism register, on the same day, in the same hand:* «Revisus in Visitatione Decanali die 17ma Julii 1804 — M. Franciscus Franovich, Canonicus, Cæsareus Regius Parochus et Decanus» *(DAPA* ZM34K-214, *M01069240, p. 25 of the deaths).* *So a visitation was not a sampling of one book — it signed off the parish's registers together.* That matters to the enquiry: *a visitation protocol of 1804 should account for* baptisms, marriages and deaths, *not one series — and the 1836 collation certificate shows the copies went up to the deanery the same way. Worklist 178 and this item are looking for the same bundle of paper.*

David, 1 October 2026: «SILESIA are we going to look for volumes and records for SILESIA? And complete that next line?» *Yes — and the first job is to narrow «Silesia», because in 1822 it names two different states with two different archive systems.* ⭐ WHAT WE HAVE. One line, and it is thin. *At the baptism of* Clementina Maria Defranceschi, 6 October 1822, *the godparents are* «Pietro Ant. Defranceschi» *and* «Amalia PESCHLE ex SILESIA», *both entered* Cives Gollogoricenses. *(doc — DAPA ZM34K-214, M01069089.)* That is the whole of it: one godmother, one word, no town. ⚠ WHICH SILESIA. *In a Habsburg register of 1822, «ex Silesia» most likely means* AUSTRIAN SILESIA — *the Habsburg duchy around* Troppau (Opava) *and* Teschen (Ciešyn), *inside the same monarchy as Istria. Prussian Silesia (Breslau, now Wrocław) was a foreign state and would more likely have been said so.* This is an inference from the politics, not from the entry, and the entry does not say. ⭐ AND THE HARDER QUESTION UNDERNEATH IT. *This archive files the Peschle as a Kvarner family —* «Volosca, on the Kvarner, and Fiume». *But* Peschle *is not a Kvarner-looking name, and in Silesia the forms* Peschel, Peschke *and* Pöschl *are ordinary German surnames.* If the family is German-Silesian in origin, then Volosca and Fiume are where they ARRIVED, not where they came from — *and Carlo De Franceschi's mother is half German. Nothing establishes that yet. It is the question the Silesian records would answer.* ⚠ The name is already unstable in our own books: *«Peschle» (1826 census), «Pesle» (baptism register, twice, 1821 and 1822). Any Silesian search must run Peschel, Peschke and Pöschl as well, or it will return nothing and prove nothing.* WHERE THE RECORDS ARE, from [the Record Atlas](../Record Atlas): | where | what | |---|---| | Acta Publica *(`actapublica`)* | Moravian and Silesian parish registers, free, no account — the Czech regional archives publish their own; this is the instrument for Austrian Silesia | | Zemský archiv v Opavě | *the Opava/Troppau regional archive itself, which holds the Austrian-Silesian registers* — not yet a provider row in the atlas | | Polish state archives *(Prussian Silesia)* | *only if the Austrian side comes up empty; a different country, a different system* | ORDER OF WORK, and the first step is free: 1. Acta Publica, surname sweep — *Peschle, Peschel, Peschke, Pöschl across the Silesian parishes, around 1780–1800 for a woman standing godmother as an adult in 1822.* 2. Add Zemský archiv v Opavě to the atlas *if it is not there — the atlas skill asks for the Wikidata id so the postal address comes with it.* 3. Only then Prussian Silesia, *and only with a reason.* ⚠ AND THE HONEST CAVEAT, up front so nobody spends a week on it. *One godmother in one entry is a direction, not a line. She may have been a servant, a visitor, a cousin by marriage, or no relation to Lambertina at all beyond the surname. What would make this a line is a Silesian Peschle who can be tied to Volosca or Fiume — and until then this item is a question, not a branch.* *No letter to be sent until David lifts the hold; Acta Publica needs none.* --- ⭐ 5 October 2026 — a SECOND raising of the same question, and this time by a household rather than a visitor. *At the baptism of* Conradus Josephus Victorius Peschle, *28 July 1853 (DAPA* ZM34K-214, *M01069128, folio 114), the godparents of a Peschle child are* «Cost. SCHROTT» *and* «Carolina WALSER», *entered* cives. *The father is* Dr Albertus Peschle, D.r Medicinæ, *head of Gologorica house 2; the mother* Victoria née Calligarich. *(The household itself was already held from the census — see the married-in page — so this is* verification plus two new names.)* ⚠ WHAT IT ADDS, exactly. *The 1822 evidence was one godmother,* «Amalia Peschle ex Silesia». *This is* two German surnames chosen by a Peschle household for its own child. *That is a social circle, not a single visitor*, *and it is the second independent sign that this family moved among German speakers.* ⚠ WHAT IT DOES NOT ADD. *Schrott and Walser are German or Austrian;* neither is Silesian in particular, *and neither is tied here to any place. A doctor of medicine in Habsburg Istria moved in a German-speaking professional world as a matter of course.* *This does not shorten the search; it strengthens the reason for it.* AND IT ADDS TWO NAMES TO TRY, *which is worth something concrete: if* Schrott *or* Walser *turns up beside a Peschle in the Acta Publica sweep of the Silesian parishes, that is a connection rather than a coincidence.* --- ⭐ 5 October 2026, later the same day — a FOURTH Peschle, and he was summoned from somewhere else. *At the baptism of* Anna Maria Francisca Defranceschi, *4 November 1860, house 7 (DAPA* ZM34K-214, *M01069135, folio 121), the godfather of* Franciscus Xaverius Defranceschi's *daughter is* «ANSELMUS PESCHLE … per procuratorem» — *by proxy*, *the formula used when the chosen godparent cannot come and a stand-in holds the child for him. Godmother* «Beatrice Ortis»; *both* cives. The Peschle this archive has met, in order: | who | when | where seen | |---|---|---| | Lambertina née Peschle | m. 1807, b. 1786 *«Ex Volosca»* | married into the Defranceschi house | | Amalia Peschle «ex SILESIA» | 1822 | godmother at a Defranceschi font | | Dr Albertus Peschle, *D.r Medicinæ* | 1826–1853 | head of Gologorica house 2; *«habitat Pisini»*; his own child's godparents Schrott and Walser | | Anselmus Peschle | 1860 | godfather by proxy — not in the village | *Four Peschle across fifty years at one small village, one «ex Silesia», one a physician living at Pazin, one summoned in absentia.* That is a family with reach, and it is still not a family with an origin. *A proxy godfather tells you he was away without telling you where — but it is one more reason to believe this name belongs to a dispersed, literate, German-adjacent household rather than a village one.* ⚠ Still nothing Silesian beyond the single word of 1822. *The order of work above is unchanged. Anselmus joins Peschel, Peschke and Pöschl as a given name to carry into the Acta Publica sweep.*

Found on 5 October 2026 at the baptism of Enrichus Jacobus Defranceschi, and then found to be nothing to do with him. *From 1830 the* Domus *cell of this register routinely carries* two *numbers: one written, struck through with a diagonal, and a second written beneath. Clean through 1829, scattered in 1830, universal from 1831 on.* The full table of pairs is printed on the Gologorica page *and is extended every time the walk takes in another folio.* ⭐ Why it matters to this family. *The Defranceschi household appears in this one book under* two *numbers and always has:* 17 *(1811, 1816, 1822, 1828) and* 104 *(1821, a single clean figure, no strike). If the second series can be identified, that stops being an anomaly and becomes an artefact of how the book was kept — and the 1826* status animarum*, which numbers this household* 7, *may be a third series.* WHAT IT MIGHT BE, none of it established: 1. *The* Franciscan cadastre of Istria, *surveyed around* 1820, *renumbering the village; this archive already holds a 1820 cadastre note.* 2. *A* second hamlet's numbering — *the 1826 census is arranged by* Pagus, *and «Gollogorizia Jacotichi» numbers separately from «Gollogoritia».* 3. *A* later reviser *going back over the whole book, which would explain why the doubled cells appear in no chronological order within a page.* ⚠ No formula fits. *The second number is usually smaller but not by any constant or ratio: 72→36 is exactly half, 42→18 is not, 93→54 is more than half, 31→12 less.* Where a pair repeats for the same family it repeats exactly — *Runco at* 48→23 *in 1830 and again in 1832; the same house at* 6→2 *in 1830 and again in 1833* — *which is the strongest evidence that this is a mapping and not noise.* HOW TO SETTLE IT, and it costs nothing: *keep extending the table as the walk goes on.* A consistent bijection is a renumbering; a scatter is error. *Then test the winning series against the house numbers in the 1826, 1862 and 1894* status animarum, *which are on the same reel and have not been read.* ⚠ Two cautions for whoever takes this up. *First,* do not assert the cancelled 1830 Defranceschi number is 17 — *it is not legible; what is legible is that it ends in* 7 *and was replaced by* 104. *Second,* read the whole cell before recording a digit: *the first reading of the Cancinich pair here was* «37→75», *and it is* «37→73» — *the crop had cut the descender off the lower figure. That one is on the corrections page.* ⭐ 5 October 2026 — THE FIRST PAIR THAT COMES WITH A NAME. *The book's own alphabetical index (M01069167) enters* «Defranceschi Joanes Bapta DETTI LEONARDI · N.º 12». *This archive already identifies the* «detti Leonardi» *household as* casa 31. *So 31 and 12 are the same door* — *the first time a Gologorica household has been seen under a number from each series with its name attached, rather than as a strike-through.* *The index also gives the other household —* «Defranceschi Joan. Bapta defuncti Josephi · N.º 5» — *which this archive distinguishes as* casa 36. If that pairing holds too, 36 ↔ 5, *and two anchored pairs are worth more than thirty struck ones.* ⚠ Neither is asserted as a key: *one of the two casa numbers is itself an archive reading, and the index may use a third series. The method stands — collect, tabulate, then test against the 1826, 1862 and 1894 censuses.* ⭐ 6 October 2026 — A SECOND ANCHORED PAIR, from the other book. *The death register enters* «MARIANA DEFRANCESCHI, *annorum 10, Dissenteria*», *4 October 1786, at* house 31 *(DAPA* ZM34K-214, *M01069229, p. 3) — and its index files her under* «Defranceschi Joanes Bapta detti Leonardi · N.º 12». *So casa 31 ↔ index N.º 12, confirmed independently by the death book after the baptism book's index said the same yesterday.* Two books, two indexes, one pair. *That is as firm as this gets without a cadastre.* *And the death book's other Defranceschi deaths of 1786–1792 are all at* house 36, *the household the baptism index calls* «Joan. Bapta defuncti Josephi · N.º 5» — *which, if it holds,* *gives the second pair: 36 ↔ 5*. Not asserted: *no death entry has yet been seen that carries both numbers for that household.* --- ⭐ 6 OCTOBER 2026 — THE DEATH REGISTER LABELS THE TWO COLUMNS, so the renumbering itself is no longer an inference. *From page 30 the house column is split in two and the priest writes* «vetus» *and* «novus» *under the halves. The entry that carries them is a Defranceschi death —* «36 vetus · 14 novus · 12 8bris 1806 · Catharina filia defti Josephi De=franceschi, cælebs · 56 ann. · Asthma». *Casa 36 is bridged in one line, by the register rather than by arithmetic.* Labelled pairs so far — and ⚠ they do NOT fit the «about half» pattern: | vetus | novus | |---|---| | 36 | 14 | | 8 | 52 | | 107 | 76 | | 70 | 8? *(uncertain, not counted)* | *«8 vetus» → «52 novus» is six times larger.* This is a permutation, not a scaling — *which is what renumbering a village along a different route produces, and it fails the halving test outright.* ⚠ So the two column-pairs may not be the same mapping, *and the «about half» reading is now* *unsettled rather than supported*. *Nothing is withdrawn; the test the worklist set —* «a consistent bijection is a renumbering; a scatter is error» *— now has* three labelled pairs *to run against, where it had none.* Next, and cheap: *the vetus/novus pairs run only through 1806–1807 in this book. Walking those pages to the end of the dual-numbering collects the whole concordance the priest wrote down, and it can then be tested against the 1826, 1862 and 1894 status animarum on the same reel.* --- ⭐ 6 OCTOBER 2026 — and this one bears directly on the question. *The death book's index turns out to number its households by HOUSE — tested five times against the pages it points at, with three matches in the 1820s and two misses, both from before or during the renumbering.* So the index gives each household's NEW number, assigned once when it was compiled. > Defranceschi Joseph — house 17 · Joannes Baptista «detti Lonardi» — house 12 · Leonardus — house 10 · *(and Deprato Leonardus — house 6)* ⚠ A HYPOTHESIS FOR THE CONCORDANCE, offered as one and not counted as a pair. *The only man the index files under* «Leonardus N.º 10» *is Antonius «Leonardi pater», who died at house* 29 *in* 1802, *under the old numbering.* *If the index number is the new house, then 29 vetus = 10 novus.* It is not written that way anywhere, *unlike* «36 vetus · 14 novus», *so it does not go in the table — but it is exactly the kind of claim the remaining pages can confirm or kill.* Labelled pairs still stand at three: 36→14, 8→52, 107→76. *An inferred fourth, 61→6 for the Deprato house, and now an inferred fifth, 29→10. Both marked as inferences.* --- ⭐⭐ 6 OCTOBER 2026, LATER — THIS ITEM HAS BEEN ASKING ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT THINGS AT ONCE, and that is why the table would not come out. *Walking the death register to 1831 turned up a second two-column system, written as a* fraction: 65/32 · 103/61 · 41/17 · 111/68 · 31/12. *The upper number is* 1.6 to 2.6 times *the lower.* | | relation | labelled? | |---|---|---| | 1806 pairs *(death register)* | *scatter* — 36→14, 8→52, 107→76 | YES — «vetus»/«novus» | | 1830s fractions *(death register)* | *consistent ~2×* | no | | the baptism register's two columns | «about half» | no | *The «about half» observation that opened this item belongs to the SECOND system, not to the labelled renumbering.* So: the renumbering of c.1806 is real and labelled, with three pairs; the 1830s fraction is something else and is still unidentified. *A ratio that stays near 2 is the signature of* not *a permutation —* a conscription number, a cadastral parcel, or paired houses would all behave that way. *Which half is the house is not established, because nobody labelled these.* ⚠ ONE COINCIDENCE TO TEST, flagged as a lead and not a finding: *one fraction is* 31/12, *and this archive's* «casa 31» *is bridged by the baptism index to* «Defranceschi Joanes Bapta detti Leonardi N.º 12». *But the 1831 entry at 31/12 is a* Crismanich, *and a Defranceschi died at house 12 in 1826. *Either houses changed hands or the fraction is not old/new.* Next, and it is cheap: *collect every fraction through the 1830s–40s and test whether the lower numbers ever exceed about 70. If they do not, the lower is a smaller series than the houses and the «renumbering» reading is dead.* ⭐ AND THE TEST SET ABOVE HAS BEEN RUN — nineteen pairs collected from pages 71–73. > 9/4 · 31/12 · 38/19 · 41/17 · 42/21 · 54/27 · 55/25 · 57/36 · 61/29 · 64/31 · 65/32 · 72/36 · 80/43 · 85/44 · 92/50 · 94/52 · 103/61 · 111/68 · 112/69 ⭐⭐ 72/36 and 112/69 are exactly pairs from the baptism register's table — so both books use the SAME pairing and their evidence can be pooled. Upper 9–112 · lower 4–69 · ratio 1.58–2.58, clustered near 2 · NOT order-preserving *(41/17 crosses 38/19; 55/25 crosses 54/27).* *Two series of different sizes is not a renumbering* *— a renumbering moves labels and keeps the count.* ⚠ What the lower series is remains unidentified and is not guessed at. *A conscription number, cadastral parcel or tax unit would all fit.* *⚠ 57/36 and 103/61 are uncertain readings taken at page scale, flagged not dropped.*

Raised and settled on 5 October 2026, within the hour, because the test cost nothing once the frames were in hand. *At the baptism of* Teresia Defranceschi, *15 November 1843 (DAPA* ZM34K-214, *M01069118, folio 104), the godparents of a Defranceschi child are entered* «Antonio Salamon et Maria soror», *conditio* cives. ⚠ WHY IT COULD NOT BE PUBLISHED AS FOUND. *On 1 October this archive published a* «Franciscus Salman» *of Gologorica beside Francisca Salomon, downgraded it on 4 October and* withdrew it entirely on 5 October: *the family is* PALMAN, *and* «Franciscus Palman filius Stephani, Sutor» *proved it.* *It had already been wrong once about an S at the head of this kind of word in this book.* ⭐ THE TEST, AND IT IS DECISIVE. *A hand is only legible against itself. The scribe of folio 104 is* Petrus Milcetich, *and he writes* «Franciscus Palman sutor» *on folio 102 (M01069115, 28 April 1841), eleven folios earlier. The two words were cut from the film* at one magnification *and set one above the other — the plate is published:* | | Palman, 1841 | Salamon, 1843 | |---|---|---| | initial | *tall closed majuscule bowl* | *small low pointed stroke, no bowl* | | body | *a · l · m · a · n* | *a · l · a · m · o · n* | | letters | six | seven | *The medial «a» between the l and the m is the clincher.* The 1843 word is not Palman. WHAT IS NOW ESTABLISHED: *a man surnamed* Salamon, *entered* civis, *with* «Maria soror» *beside him, standing godfather to a Defranceschi child at Gologorica in 1843. A household, not a stray name.* ⚠ WHAT IS NOT: *any connection to Francisca Salomon's people.* That needs this Antonio Salamon tied to Gračišće, *and nothing here does it.* *Worklist 174 carries what would.*

Raised and closed on 5 October 2026 — and it should never have been raised as David's decision. *This archive held* two *rows for the daughter of* Antonius Defranceschi and Francisca, *born* 14 November 1843 *at Gologorica house 5:* `teresia-defranceschi-1843` *and* `theresia-defranceschi-1843`, *one spelt with an h.* The register names her TERESIA, without it. It was put to David on the ground that retiring either row would break a published address. *That ground was right; the conclusion was not.* *Twenty-nine other rows in this roster already carry a* `sameAs` *field* *saying «this row and that row are one person» — it retires nothing, moves no id, keeps both addresses alive and stops the count lying.* Applied: `theresia-defranceschi-1843` *is marked* `sameAs: teresia-defranceschi-1843`. Written up on the corrections page, *because the error worth recording is not the duplicate — it is that a session escalated a question the archive had already answered twenty-nine times.* *Before escalating, grep for how the same shape was settled before.* Still worth doing, and now the only part left: *a sweep for other pairs sharing a birth year, a parent pair and a name differing by one letter. The* `sameAs` *mechanism makes it safe and cheap.*

Worklist 172 established that the 1843 godfather's surname is SALAMON and not Palman, *by setting the word beside the same scribe's Palman at one magnification.* That is a lead on the Salomon maternal line and it is not yet a line. *What is held is one entry:* «Antonio Salamon et Maria soror», *cives, standing for* Teresia Defranceschi *on* 15 November 1843 *at Gologorica house 5.* THE ORDER OF WORK, cheapest first, and all of it is in frames the family already holds: 1. Sweep the rest of this baptism book for Salamon. *Folios 105 to the end (M01069119–M01069181, about 63 frames) are unread, and folios 1–104 were read for* Defranceschi *— not for Salamon.* *A second pass of the read folios specifically for this surname costs nothing but attention*, *and a man with a sister at Gologorica in 1843 should have children, a marriage or a burial in the same parish.* 2. **The 1826 *status animarum*** *(M01069315–M01069435) was walked end to end and no Salamon was recorded — but it was being read for* Defranceschi *wives, and a godfather's household is exactly the kind of thing such a reading passes over.* Worth one targeted re-look at the household index. 3. The Gologorica death register 1784–1880 *(M01069224–M01069314, 91 frames,* *2% read*) *— if he died in the parish it names his age and often his birthplace, which is what would tie him to Gračišće or rule it out.* 4. Only then Gračišće. *Francisca Salomon's own parish is on* ZM34K-216, *the one reel of this set the family does not hold, and getting it is already the first errand.* ⚠ AND THE DISCIPLINE THAT GOT THIS FAR, written down so it is not lost: *the Salman lead was published, downgraded and withdrawn across six days because it was written up before it was tested.* This one was tested before it was written up. *Every further step here states which it is.*

Raised 5 October 2026 by the entry that placed Adelaidis. *Three sources describe a daughter of* Josephus Defranceschi and Lambertina née Peschle *born in* 1824, *and they do not use the same name:* | source | name | date | |---|---|---| | the family tree / pedigree | Anastasia | 8 December 1824 | | the 1826 *status animarum*, house 7 | Maria Adelgidis | *listed sixth of ten children* | | this roster, imported from the live tree 20 Sept 2026 | Adelaidis | 1824, unplaced until today | **The 1847 baptism register names* «Maximilianus Defranceschi et soror Adelaidis» *— so Adelaidis is certainly their daughter.* What is not certain is whether she and Anastasia are the same child or two. WHAT WOULD SETTLE IT, cheapest first: 1. The baptism itself. *December 1824 falls around folio* 78–80 *of this book (roughly M01069091–M01069093), which have been read for the surname but not re-read for a given name.* *One targeted look at the December 1824 entries answers it outright* *— the register will have written whichever name she was christened with, and if there are two girls there are two entries.* 2. *The* 1826 census, house 7 *(M01069332) is already transcribed; re-read it for whether an Anastasia appears anywhere in the household.* 3. *The* death register *(M01069224–M01069314), for either name.* ⚠ Nothing is merged until step 1 is done. *A person id is minted once and frozen; retiring a row on a suspicion breaks a published address for a saving of one line in a count.* And a family that demonstrably reused the name Clementina for two daughters is a family that could have had both an Anastasia and an Adelgidis. ✔ 6 October 2026 — AMELIA IS OUT. *The death register gives* «Die 22 Xbris 1826 · domus 17 · AMALIA DE FRANCESCHI, filia Josephi · 8 Men[ses]» *(DAPA* ZM34K-214, *M01069262, p. 67).* *She died at eight months old in December 1826*, *so she cannot be the Adelaidis who stands godmother in 1847, 1852 and at the twins' font in 1868.* The question is now two names, not four: *is* Adelaidis *the same girl as* Anastasia *(b. 8 December 1824), or are they two?* *The test is unchanged and still cheap*: *read the December 1824 folios of the baptism book for a given name. The frames are in hand.*

Noticed on 5 October 2026 at folio 109, after four of them turned up in a handful of frames. *The Gologorica baptism register carries* death dates written into baptism entries by a later hand, *sometimes seventy years after the event:* | person | baptised | margin | |---|---|---| | Rosa Defranceschi | 8 June 1848 | † 10 Dec 1899 | | Leonardus Defranceschi | 23 Jan 1847 | † 20 Dec 1917 | | *Antonius Sestan, son of Sancta Alexandra* | 27 Mar 1848 | † 27 Aug 1923 | | *Antonius Gasparich* | 4 June 1830 | † 4 Mar 1898 | ⚠ WHY THIS IS A WORKLIST ITEM AND NOT JUST AN OBSERVATION. *This archive has walked roughly a hundred folios of this book reading the* entry. *The margins were seen and passed over as annotation.* *They are a death register hiding inside a baptism register*, *and they close dates this archive has been recording as unknown — Rosa's fifty-one years were a blank until this afternoon.* WHAT TO DO, and it is cheap because the frames are already in hand: 1. Re-read every Defranceschi entry already found, *for its margin alone. About thirty entries across folios 1–109.* 2. *Carry the margins forward as part of the walk from folio 110 on —* done from this row onward. 3. *Where a margin gives a death, say so on the person's page and mark it* doc, *naming frame and folio.* ⚠ And a caution. *A marginal* «†» *with a bare day and two-digit year —* «† 10/12 99» — *is ambiguous about century on its face.* It is not ambiguous in practice here, *because the subject's own baptism fixes the only century that can follow it; but the reading should always be stated with the baptism beside it, as Rosa's is.* --- ✔ STEP 1 DONE, 5 October 2026 — and the answer is a caution rather than a harvest. *Every Defranceschi baptism this archive has found in the first hundred folios was re-cropped and read for its margin alone:* | entry | frame | margin | |---|---|---| | Maria Aloysia, 1811 | M01069070 | *— none* | | Franciscus Xaverius, 1816 | M01069078 | † 4 January 1893 *(already held)* | | Clementina, 1821 | M01069086 | *— none* | | Clementina Maria, 1822 | M01069089 | *— none* | | Maximilianus Antonius, 1828 | M01069098 | † 6 August 1910 *(already held)* | | Enrichus Jacobus, 1830 | M01069102 | *— none* | No new deaths. Both margins that exist were already read. ⚠ AND THE REAL RESULT IS THE CALIBRATION. *On folio 73 only* one of three *entries carries a dagger; on folio 89,* one of five. *The later keeper's work is partial, so a blank margin is not evidence that anybody lived.* *That matters immediately: the 1821 Clementina has no dagger, and this archive's inference that she died young is neither supported nor refuted by it.* Nobody should read a silent margin as a life. Step 2 — carrying margins forward from folio 110 — remains, and is now part of every row of the walk.

Raised 5 October 2026 the moment the register supplied a date that collided. | row | born | died | source | line | |---|---|---|---|---| | `antonius-defranceschi-1853` | 3 February 1855 *(register)* | 17 February 1913 *(register margin)* | doc — DAPA ZM34K-214, M01069130 | carnia, Gologorica, son of Antonius & Francisca | | `antonius-defranceschi-1855` | 1855 | 1918 | MyHeritage tree | *unknown*, no place | Same name, same birth year, and the death years are five apart. ⚠ WHY THIS IS NOT MERGED. *A death year is usually the better-evidenced of the two, so a five-year gap usually means* *one side is describing a different man of the same name in the same parish* *— which is exactly what this archive concluded twice before, for Clementina and Josephus Lambertus, and has not yet resolved in either case.* Three unresolved death-year collisions in one family is itself a finding, *and it points at one book.* WHAT SETTLES IT, and it is the same answer all three times: *the* Gologorica death register 1784–1880 *(M01069224–M01069314,* 91 frames, *about 2% read).* *This is now the strongest reason to open that book*, *and it would close Clementina, Josephus Lambertus and this Antonius in one walk.* ⚠ Do not assume the margin wins. *The 1913 date is a later hand writing in a baptism register sixty years on; the 1918 is a family tree. Both are second-hand to the death itself. The burial entry is first-hand and neither of these is.* --- ⭐ 5 October 2026, finishing the baptism book — A FOURTH, and it is the sharpest. *The register gives* «ALOYSIUS DEFRANCESCHI, MERCATOR» *fathering two daughters at Gologorica:* Elvira Gisella, 15 April 1873 *(M01069155) and* Ersilia, 8 December 1878 *(M01069161), by* «Joanna nata Udovicic». *This archive carries* Aloysius Defranceschi, born 8 May 1832 at Volosca, died 25 November 1870 — *Carlo's brother.* *A man dead in 1870 cannot father a child in 1873.* So either there were two Aloysius Defranceschi at Gologorica, or the 1870 death belongs to somebody else. *Nothing has been changed on his record.* | person | one source | the other | gap | |---|---|---|---| | Clementina Maria, b. 1822 | 1840 | 1870 | 30 years | | Josephus Lambertus, b. 1808 | 1857 | 1878 | 21 years | | Antonius, b. 1855 | 1913 | 1918 | 5 years | | Aloysius, b. 1832 | dead 1870 | fathering children 1873 and 1878 | *a contradiction, not a gap* | *Four of them, in one family, all closed by the same ninety-one frames.* The Gologorica death register 1784–1880 is now the single most valuable unread thing on either reel, *and it is already in the family's hands.* ⭐ 6 October 2026 — A FIFTH, and the first the death book has MADE rather than closed. *Domina Helena, widow of the late Josephus Defranceschi, died* 26 August 1804, aged 84 *(DAPA* ZM34K-214, *M01069240, p. 25) — which puts her birth about* 1720. *This archive carries her as* 1725–1809. ⚠ This one is different in kind from the other four. *Those are a family tree against an archive's reasoning.* *This is a contemporary parish entry against a date this archive has published*, *and the parish entry is the better-placed of the two.* Nothing has been changed on her row: *the death book is four frames into ninety-one, and the sensible thing is to finish it and move the dates together rather than one at a time.* *Two of the five are now closed by this book and a third has been created by it.* *That is the argument for walking it, restated as a result.*

Found 5 October 2026 in the strip at the foot of folio 98, which this archive had been cropping off every page all day. > «Quae copiae collationatae anni 1835 concordant cum hoc originali libro. Ex officio Decanatus, Petinae die 7 Maij 1836.» *(doc — DAPA* ZM34K-214, *M01069111.)* *The parish copied each year's register; the dean collated the copy against the original and certified that the two agreed.* So a second, certified set of these books went out of Gologorica annually, and the film holds the one that stayed. ⭐ WHY THIS MAY MATTER MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE ON THIS LIST. 1. The reel the family does not hold. *Gračišće — where Francisca, Joanna and probably Lucia were born — is on* ZM34K-216. *If Gračišće sent annual copies to the same deanery,* *there is a second route to the same entries*. 2. The three death-year collisions. *A duplicate death register is a second chance at the same burials.* 3. An independent third reading *wherever this register and the 1826 census disagree — and they disagree on five of Joanna's eight children.* ⚠ WHAT IS NOT KNOWN, AND IT IS NEARLY EVERYTHING. *Whether the duplicates* survive; *where they went after the deanery; whether the practice ran for more than the one year this certificate covers; whether Gračišće did the same.* *This archive has not looked and is not claiming they exist.* What it now knows is that they were MADE — *which is the difference between a search with a target and a search without one.* WHERE TO LOOK, in order: 1. *The* Državni arhiv u Pazinu *finding aids for* deanery *(dekanat) and* diocesan *fonds, as distinct from parish fonds — the atlas already lists DAPA and it is already on the errands for other reasons.* 2. *The* diocesan archive at Poreč, *which took the Pićan material after 1788 and is also already on the errands list.* 3. *Ask both in the same letter as the reel request*, *naming this certificate and its date*, *because an archivist can answer «do you hold the deanery duplicates» far faster than they can answer «what do you have».* *No letter to be sent until David lifts the hold — but this changes what the letters should ask for.*

Found 5 October 2026 on folio 142 of the Gologorica baptism register — a typewritten slip pasted across two entries of July 1871, the only typewriting in a book of handwriting. > «Giusta lettera del Commissariato Gen. Civ. per la Venezia Giulia dd 10/12 1920 N. 1x-4411/563 la grafia originale del cognome di questo battezzato è “de Franceschi”, ciò che risulta dalla fede di nascita del suo proavo LEONARDO DE FRANCESCHI nato a LUINCIO dd. 23/6 1626. D’Ordine del Commissariato Gen. Civ. — Avv. Melone» *(doc — DAPA* ZM34K-214, *M01069151, folio 142. The story is told on the Carnia page and on the Gologorica page.)* ⭐ WHY THIS IS THE BIGGEST LEAD ON THIS LIST. *The Carnia chain begins with a* Leonardo de Franceschi *dead before 1785, known only from his son’s styling; its deepest document is a parish certificate of 1808 reaching a* Giovanni Battista *dead by 1789 — and that certificate was written* «a parte Luvincis» *by the priest of the* Pieve Matrice di Gorto. *An Italian state official in 1920 cites the same parish’s Book of Baptisms for 1626 and names a man in it.* Which also means the 1626 volume existed in 1920. TARGET 1 — THE ACT, and it is the easier of the two. *A numbered, dated act of a named office:* Commissariato Generale Civile per la Venezia Giulia, 10 December 1920, protocol N. 1x-4411/563. * *The Commissariato’s records are* state records of the Kingdom of Italy, *and the obvious holder is the* Archivio di Stato di Trieste, *which took the civil administration’s papers.* * *An enquiry citing* the exact protocol number and date *is the kind an archivist can answer in one search — far better than a general question about a surname.* * ***The file should contain or cite the* fede di nascita *itself***, *which is what this archive actually wants.* TARGET 2 — THE BOOK. *The baptisms of the* Pieve di Gorto at Luincis (Ovaro, Udine) for 1626. * *[The Record Atlas](../Record Atlas) and the* Antenati *portal are the first look; Udine’s diocesan and state archives the second.* * *This archive already quotes the Gorto Book of Baptisms at second hand, through the 1808 certificate.* *It has never read the book.* ⚠ AND THE DISCIPLINE, because this is exactly the kind of find that gets over-read. 1. *It is a* 1920 ruling, not a 1626 record. *An official says the certificate existed and says what it said.* 2. «Proavo» is loose — *great-grandfather by the dictionary, forefather in use; 1626 to 1871 is seven or eight generations.* 3. The office had a motive. *A body regularising surnames after annexation wants a spelling settled, and a settled spelling is not a proved descent.* *Nothing shows the official traced the line; it shows he accepted it.* 4. *No generation has been added to the Carnia chain on the strength of it*, *and none will be until the book is read.* ✅ AND THE ENTRY UNDERNEATH IS READABLE AFTER ALL. *The film photographed this opening* twice *— M01069151 with the slip down, M01069152 with it folded back. Underneath:* «[domus] 7 · VICTOR RICHARDUS die 15. Junii natus», *of* «Defranceschi, possidens» *and* «Clotilde nata Ortis», *with* «vide … sub 30 protocoll.» *written in the margin as a cross-reference to the ruling.* *So the act is about Victor Richardus Defranceschi, born 15 June 1871*, *who was forty-nine in 1920 and newly an Italian subject — exactly the man who would need a birth certificate rewritten.* That was an inference for an hour and is now a document. *Which gives the enquiry a third handle*: *the act can be asked for by* protocol number, *by* date, *and now by* the name of the person it concerns. *No letter to be sent until David lifts the hold — but of everything on this list, this is the one where a single enquiry with a protocol number could answer a question the archive has carried since it began.*

Found 6 October 2026 on page 38 of the Gologorica death register, written across the column by the parish priest himself. > «N.B. Hic Liber cum aliis ex justa ordinationem regiminis GALLICI consignatus fuit MUNICIPALITATI PISINENSI die 20ma Julii 1812, et die 5ta Januarii 1814 fuere restituti ab Administratione Dominali; quamobrem Mortuorum eorum Nomina, qui per hoc intervallum obierunt, fideliter ex more solito hic retuli: ego idem Parochus Mocovich qui supra.» *(doc — DAPA* ZM34K-214, *M01069247.)* Istria was inside Napoleon's Illyrian Provinces, and the French took registration off the church and gave it to the commune. *The books went to Pazin on* 20 July 1812 *and came back on* 5 January 1814. ⭐ WHAT TO LOOK FOR. *If the commune held registration for eighteen months, the commune registered.* *There should be French civil registers — actes de l'état civil — of the Municipality of Pazin for 1812–1814*, *covering every parish in its district, Gologorica among them.* This archive has never asked for them. *They are the only* contemporary *record of that window.* WHERE: 1. *The* Državni arhiv u Pazinu *itself — the commune's own successor archive, and already on the errands list for the reel and the deanery papers. One letter can ask for all three.* 2. *The* Record Atlas *should be checked for an Illyrian Provinces / état civil collection for Istria; if there is none, the atlas skill says to add the holder.* 3. *Napoleonic civil registers for the Illyrian Provinces survive patchily and are often catalogued under the* French *administration rather than the parish — which is exactly why a search by parish name has never turned them up.* ⚠ AND THE REASON IT MATTERS EVEN IF THEY ARE LOST. *The priest says he entered the interval's deaths* *afterwards* — «hic retuli». So every Gologorica date this archive holds from July 1812 to January 1814 is retrospective, *written up from memory or from a note eighteen months later.* *That is not a reason to distrust them; it is a reason to* say so *wherever one is cited, and to prefer a municipal entry if one is ever found.* *No letter to be sent until David lifts the hold.*

Found 6 October 2026 in the death book's own index, one block below the Defranceschi. *The parish held two families whose surnames both begin* «De—» *and both break across a line, and whose men carry the same names:* | DEFRANCESCHI · Joseph, N.º 17 | | DEPRATO · Leonardus, N.º 6 | | |---|---|---|---| | Catharina, uxor Joan: Baptæ | p. 12 | Cattarina, uxor Joan: Baptæ | p. 24 | | **R.dus Joan: Mathias, *ex Parochus* | p. 15 | R.dus Joseph Deprato, *Ex Parochus* | p. 20 | | D.nus Joan: Bapta q. Josephi | p. 39 | Joannes Bapta, *viduus* | p. 32 | | Helena, *vidua* q. Josephi | p. 25 | Catharina, *vidua* q. Leonardi | p. 50 | | — | | Josephus, *filius q. Joan: Baptæ* | p. 39** | *(doc — DAPA* ZM34K-214, *M01069301.)* ⚠ BOTH OF THE LAST TWO ARE ON PAGE 39 — *the Defranceschi head of house dies there on 23 January 1813 and the Deprato student three rows below on 12 March.* *This archive nearly wrote the second into the roster as a Defranceschi.* THE RULE, for whoever walks these books next: > *At Gologorica, a «De—» surname with a Joannes Baptista, a Catharina his wife, a Josephus his son and a Reverend ex-parish-priest may be a Defranceschi or a Deprato. Read the second syllable, past the line break, before you write the name down.* WHAT TO DO: 1. *No Deprato enters the roster* — *they are not this surname and this is a one-name study.* 2. Re-check every «Defranceschi» this archive has read off these two reels where the surname was broken across a line, *particularly in narrow columns. The hazard is not hypothetical; it caught this session once in a day.* 3. *Note that the Deprato also had a* Reverend former parish priest *(p. 20). If a Gračišće or Gologorica source ever names a priest only by* «Rev. Joseph De—», *it is as likely to be the Deprato as ours.*

⚠ Two precise dates sit on Jacobus de Franceschi with no source written down anywhere in this archive — and the death register disagrees with both. What the register says *(Gologorica deaths, M01069273, p. 88):* «Decembris 8° · 7 · Jacobus Defranceschi, civis · 88 · febris et senectus», *buried the* 10th. | | this archive | the register | |---|---|---| | death day | 3 December 1850 | 8 December 1850 | | age / birth | b. 21 July 1761 → age 89 | age 88 → born Dec 1761 – Dec 1762 | Burial on the 10th fits a death on the 8th, *not on the 3rd. And the row already records that the tree says* 1762 *where this archive says* 1761 — *the register's own age falls on the tree's side*. ⚠ Nothing has been changed. *A precise birth date beats an age at death* if it came off a baptism. *The 21 July 1761 may well have; it simply is not cited, and @I33@ carries one line — «Bachelor (celebs), listed at the head of house 7 in the 1826 status animarum» — and no source for either date.* How to settle it, in order: 1. *Grep this archive's own logs for where 21 July 1761 entered — it is precise enough to have come from a document somebody read.* 2. *The Gologorica baptisms of 1761 are on* ZM34K-214, the 1764–1788 book's predecessor *— MKR 1646–1806 is on the same reel and is 8% read. A baptism there settles the birth outright.* 3. *The 1826 status animarum gives him an age; pages 14 and 17–27 are already read and would narrow it.*

Antonia Defranceschi was baptised 24 December 1849 at «house 5» *and died* 21 January 1850 *at* «house 53». Twenty-eight days. *The death number was not taken on trust: the whole house column of page 88 reads* 53, 47, 59, 13, 54, 30, 65, 17, 33, 7 — *two digits, in line with its neighbours*. ⚠ Three readings, none preferred here: 1. *The household* moved *between Christmas and late January — a month is tight but not impossible.* 2. *The baby was* elsewhere *— with a wet-nurse or kin — and the priest entered the house she died in.* 3. *One of the two numbers is a* slip. Why it matters beyond one child: *this archive identifies its households by house number, and* house 5 is the direct line's. *A Defranceschi dying at 53 is either a second address for that family or a warning that the number follows the* body, *not the household.* *The 1862 status animarum, 3.5% read, would show who held 53.*

⚠ THIS ITEM WAS RAISED ON A MISTAKE AND IS REWRITTEN. See corrections. *It originally asked whether a Defranceschi had* married *a Deprato, on the premise that this register names married women by their* maiden *surname.* *It does not — it uses the husband's*, *proved by* «Lambertina Defranceschi, civis» *(1863), who was born* Peschle*. So the corrected question. *Mathaea Defranceschi died at house* 6 *on 8 September 1858, aged 86 — she was the* wife *of a Leonardus* Defranceschi. *But house 6 is the* Deprato *house by four marks: the index block «Deprato Leonardus N.º 6» and the deaths there of Joseph Deprato (1801), Joannes Baptista Deprato (1809) and Catharina widow of Leonardus Deprato (1817).* *Why is a Defranceschi wife in it by 1858?* Readings, none preferred: *the Defranceschi acquired house 6; the house was renumbered between 1817 and 1858 and these are not the same building; or a widow moved into kin's property.* *This archive has already watched house 31 pass to a Crismanich, so houses plainly changed hands.* How to settle it: *the* 1826 status animarum *lists every house by name and relationship — 30 of its 121 frames are read and the page for house 6 would answer it outright.*

Page 128 of the death register carries a line unlike every other inspection in the volume: > «Vidi in visitatione canonica die 7. Julii 1876. G. Dobrila, Ep[iscopu]s» *Dozens of inspections run through this book from 1805 to 1875 and* all of them are signed «Decanus» *— Petrus Anicich, Franciscus Coverlizza, Jacobus Bariha.* ***This one is signed by a bishop and calls itself* canonical *rather than decanal.* ⚠ The obvious identification is [Juraj Dobrila](https://www.wikidata.org/)** *(1812–1882) — Bishop of Poreč-Pula from 1857, then of Trieste-Koper from 1875; the Croatian national-revival figure who founded* «Naša sloga» *and endowed scholarships for Istrian students.* ⚠ But Gologorica's diocese and Dobrila's see in July 1876 need checking against each other *— if he had moved to Trieste-Koper in 1875, a canonical visitation at Gologorica in 1876 needs explaining, and that explanation may itself be interesting.* Why it is worth the hour: 1. *A bishop's visitation is a* diocesan *event with its own paperwork — visitation protocols, relations, decrees — held at the diocesan archive, not the parish.* 2. *Dobrila is one of the best-documented Istrians of the century. If he stood in this village in 1876, the family's house-7 «cives» were in the room.* 3. *It would date and name a record series this archive does not yet have: the* canonical visitation of 1876. ⚠ Nothing is claimed. The register gives a date, a name and a title; the rest is to be found.

Three rows in this archive carry the note «The tree and this archive disagree about the DEATH year … that is the serious kind». Two were closed on 6 October 2026, and in BOTH the tree was right. | | tree | archive | the register | | |---|---|---|---|---| | Clementina | 1870 | 1840 | 10 Mar 1870 | *tree right* | | Josephus | 1878 | 1857 | 22 Dec 1878 | *tree right* | | Lina | 1923 | 1925 | *—* | *open* | ⚠ In both closed cases the archive had the DAY and MONTH right and the DECADE wrong *— the signature of a transcription slip, not of two people being confused.* So the third should be opened with the expectation that the tree is right, *though the gap there is* two years, *not twenty — a different shape, and possibly a different fault.* ⚠ Caution before anyone starts: *born* 1914, *died* 1923 or 1925 *— a child, and the living-people rule does not apply to the dead, but her siblings may be living. Name only until the family is mapped.* *The record to want is the* Gologorica deaths after 1880, *which are not on either reel this family holds — this is an errand, not a search.*

The last written page of the Gologorica death register 1784–1880 ends with a direction, in Italian, across the foot of the page: > «Segue libro nuovo · Vol. IV» *(M01069297, p. 135)* *So the volume this archive has just walked end to end is Volume III, and Volume IV exists and was in use from 23 January 1880.* ⚠ It is on neither reel this family holds. *ZM34K-214 and ZM34K-215 carry the books mapped frame by frame, and this one is not among them.* What it would settle: 1. *The third and last «disputed death year» row — Lina Defranceschi, tree 1923 against this archive's 1925. The other two were both resolved in the tree's favour by the book just finished.* 2. Every Defranceschi death at Gologorica after January 1880 *— which is the whole of the generation this archive follows into the twentieth century.* 3. *The deaths of people whose births are already documented in the baptism book, walked to 1880 — the other end of dozens of lives.* How to ask: *the same route as the ZM34K-216 errand — DAPA at Pazin, naming the parish, the series and the volume.* *The letter can cite the previous volume's own closing line, which is as precise a reference as an archive could want.*