The courtyard site of the shooting was excavated and paved within days of the killing, and the investigation's lead agent testified that he did not personally authorize the alteration.

Obtained records document the timeline and the invoice, and the lead-agent testimony is reported from the hearing; the full authorization chain remains unreleased and the synthesis is secondary.

GRAMA-obtained records document the September 11–14 chronology and invoice, and Hull's cross-examination testimony is reported from the hearing (KRK-E033); KRK-E058 notes this is the only comparable case with a disputed authorization, but the full authorization chain is unreleased and the synthesis is secondary.

GRAMA-obtained records document the September 11–14 chronology and the invoice, and Hull's cross-examination testimony is reported from the hearing (KRK-E033); KRK-E058 notes this is the only comparable venue with a disputed authorization. The full authorization chain is still unreleased and the synthesis remains secondary.

GRAMA-obtained records document the September 11–14 chronology and the invoice, and Hull's cross-examination testimony is reported from the hearing; the base-rate study (KRK-E058) notes this is the only comparable case with a disputed authorization, but the full authorization chain is still unreleased and the synthesis remains secondary.

Independent records reviews cite a cleanup invoice from September 11 and paving by September 14, and hearing testimony confirms the lead investigator did not personally authorize the alteration. The grade remains provisional because the full scene-release and authorization chain, which could routinely route through other campus or state officials, is not public.

GRAMA-derived records and the Sherafy synthesis show cleanup orders issued on September 11, pavers being installed by September 14, and a $6,090.52 invoice explicitly labeled “Clean up for shooting incident,” along with Hull’s testimony that he did not personally authorize the excavation or paving. This substantiates both the rapid alteration and that the lead investigator was not the authorizing agent. The remaining uncertainty concerns the full authorization chain and whether proper scene release preceded work, which are not yet fully documented.

A records-based review of GRAMA documents reports a 11 September cleanup order, pavers by 14 September, a $6,090.52 emergency invoice reading "Clean up for shooting incident," and lead investigator Hull's testimony that he did not authorize the excavation and learned of it through the news. The scene change is documented; the complete authorization chain is not. Strongest opposing consideration: biohazard remediation and campus reopening fully explain rapid alteration if the scene had already been processed and released, and facilities authority need not run through the lead investigator.

A records-based chronology drawn from GRAMA-obtained documents places a cleanup order on September 11, surface-alteration discussions by September 13, and pavers on September 14, with a $6,090.52 emergency invoice reading "Clean up for shooting incident"; the lead investigator testified he did not authorize the work and learned of it through the news. The strongest opposing consideration is provenance depth: this reaches the file through a secondary synthesis rather than the underlying records themselves, and Hull's testimony establishes only that he did not authorize it, not that no one with proper authority did — biohazard remediation and campus reopening are sufficient explanations if the scene had already been processed and released.