Build the 1902 review on the left. Build the Catherine / Article XIX federal record body on the right. Then test only the crossing the evidence permits.
This machine does not begin by accusing the reviewers of ignoring a record. It asks what they actually used, what else existed in the federal documentary system, what was relevant to the question they decided, and what we can or cannot prove about review adequacy.
The operator may propose a test. It may not answer it without running through the loaded tickets.
The test bench gets more useful as you put controlled objects into the two bays.
EXISTED ≠ IN CASE ≠ NAMED IN REVIEW ≠ REQUIRED TO CONSULT ≠ ADEQUATE / INADEQUATE.
These are objects or record domains the present MCR 879 source bodies actually name, transmit, use, or characterize.
These existed in separately controlled treaty-land and federal record bodies. Their relation to MCR 879 must be tested, not assumed.
Closed: MCR 879 was transmitted upward; the Commission told Bell it was “for review”; Indian Affairs performed substantive review; Interior said it carefully reviewed the whole case and affirmed.
Closed: a distinct Article XIX federal record architecture existed, including the Catharine McKinney farm-return occurrence, patent-path occurrence, and later Reserve File C archival series.
Open: whether the Catherine/Catharine occurrences are one historical person; whether the Article XIX body entered MCR 879; and the exact legal/procedural rule defining how far the 1902 merits review had to search beyond the transmitted case and the federal records it actually invoked.