Keep entry and exit images with their timing, source and correction history so a reviewer can assess what the record supports.
A reviewable record keeps the image with its capture time, location, source, corrections and handling history. A reviewer needs that context to judge what an observation supports, particularly when a parking decision is disputed.
An automated photograph is still evidence that needs interpretation. Requirements for a particular dispute or proceeding should be assessed by the relevant adviser, rather than inferred from the existence of a digital log.
A handwritten observation depended on notes and recollection. Digital capture can preserve imagery and metadata, but adds clock settings, recognition corrections and transfer history that may also need explanation. A sharp photograph does not answer those separate questions.
Keeping the source and later changes distinguishable helps a reviewer understand what was captured and what someone subsequently corrected. The exported package needs to retain enough of that context for another person to follow the decision.
Detailed evidence may be needed for a contested decision, referral or proceeding. Every ordinary visit does not therefore need a permanent case package. An authorised reviewer should first decide whether the observation supports the proposed inference.
A plate match alone does not establish who drove, continuous occupation or wrongdoing. Selected evidence with explanatory notes can be more useful for that assessment than a large export of unrelated movements.
Two sightings may represent one long stay or separate visits with a missed intermediate movement. Review the available sequence and note any gap or uncertain reading. Do not turn the endpoints into an assertion of continuity without the supporting context.
Preserve the source image, plate crop, original time, time zone, camera identifier and corrections separately. Document clock checks and keep the approved export with its notes and handling record. Presentation requirements depend on the forum assessing the material.
CORE connects evidence, notes, tasks and case history, while its evidence view presents capture details alongside imagery. That gives a reviewer relevant context for explaining the basis of a decision and identifying material needing further examination.
Source preservation, corrections, export content and clock responsibilities still need confirmation for the deployment. These workflow features support examination; admissibility and any court outcome remain matters for the particular proceeding.
Aero Ranger: Cases; Aero Ranger: evidence review view; Aero Ranger: capture date, time and GPS context
Sources were reviewed on the publication date. Check the linked material for current details.
