For the subsequent handling of a tenancy matter the earlier handover protocol is being sought. The file contains only a photo of the first page. An e‑mail mentions an attachment that can no longer be found. The person who supervised the matter at the time recalls another outstanding point. You now need a traceable compilation, without afterwards presenting it as an alleged original.
First, search specifically for the real version
Record the date, parties involved, known file names and the last recorded storage location. Search in the folders intended for this matter and in the communication actually related to it. Ask the other entitled contractual party for any existing complete copy including attachments.
Note which items found are genuine arrivals. An existing first page is not described as a complete protocol. Check the page numbering, references to attachments and recognisable differences between found versions. A similar file name does not yet prove that two files contain the same version from that time.
Visibly distinguish three types of information
In the hypothetical case the page photo shows an entry that is clearly legible. The e‑mail only states that an ancillary room should be inspected later. The memory of the earlier supervisor, by contrast, concerns an allegedly defective handle. These pieces of information receive different labels.
- Legible partial copy – What may appear in the replacement version: Actual content with source; Open limit: Remaining pages missing
- Message about the appointment – What may appear in the replacement version: Content of this message with date; Open limit: Not a substitute for the missing attachment
- Present recollection – What may appear in the replacement version: Own current account with provenance; Open limit: Wording at the time not documented
Do not write down recollections as alleged verbatim lines from the old protocol. Do not transfer an image of a signature from a partial copy to the new compilation. The new working document carries its actual creation date and the designation Ersatzstand.
Trace every statement back to its basis
Assign each recorded point to the concrete item found or to the explicitly identified recollection. If there are contradictory statements, they remain visible side by side. The desire for a closed narrative is no reason to supply a missing answer yourself.
Then check whether an entitled person not involved can recognise the source of each content. The compilation should facilitate further handling; it neither determines evidential value nor a claim for damages or payment. Legally significant gaps belong, with precisely those limits, to the specialist review.
Treat a later discovery of the original separately
In the example the landlord later receives a complete copy from the tenant at the time. She files the item with the actual date of receipt and compares it with her Ersatzstand. Deviations are explained, rather than covertly replacing the old reconstruction as if it had always been correct.
The outcome remains traceable: found documents, the compilation created today and known gaps each have their own status. A replacement file can organise useful information. It cannot retroactively produce missing observations or explanations from the time.