- Apollo "Little Joe" A-003 (May 19, 1965): A roll gyro - Proton-M Launch Failure (July 2, 2013): Yaw sensors - Genesis Space Probe (2001): Accelerometer
Getting things the right way round is very important.
Just send an email to the board of trustees / body corporate and move on.
In a situation like that, I think you kind of have to acknowledge the original drawings as the preferred state for things. Especially when just about anyone with training in this area would readily agree that that design aligns with what they'd all consider usual or correct.
Is this some kind of joke, or is the author really lost in some conspiracy-level detail tracking, hunting for "hidden signals"?
2) it's called research and there are whole ministries dedicated to answering random questions like this one
That it is not aesthetically obvious, suggests it was drawn that way and not a mistake. Good typography is subtle and bespoke typography even more so.
To me the evidence in the article still suggests that “hard correctness” is probably not historically appropriate…hand lettering is not a typeface.
That’s really where I am coming from — the perspective of historical architecture, historical architectural practice, and historical methods of delivering buildings.
In particular, today’s mythological Wright is not the 1908’s historical Wright on a commercial jobsite. And the contractual relationships of a 1908 construction project were not delineated like current construction projects.
I don't really see how you can come away with the conclusion that this suggests lack of intent; at most, it seems like you had already formed the opinion that there was no intent, and you didn't find the evidence to the contrary convincing enough that you were wrong. I don't think your take is necessarily wrong, but I don't think it's fair to characterize the evidence as suggesting what you're saying.
