UTI 3, 1630, offered only a partial fit to a credit entry of the large account Erlenmeyer 152, as noted in CDLJ 2003:1 §16. Since there was a difference of 42 workdays between the two records, and since Erlenmeyer 152 indicated that its scribe was looking at two sealed documents for this entry, I stated that “the second [missing] sealed tablet is a copy of this one, exchanging 42 for 2.15 in the first line.” A recent publication of Ur III tablets in the British Museum by Tohru Ozaki and Marcel Sigrist (BPOA 1; Madrid 2006) contains the missing receipt in number 608 (=BM 106886), though in a form slightly more complex than initially suspected:

While the result is as anticipated (6 + (12×3) = 42), the new text separates from a three-day work period of 12 laborers a six-workday period described as a₂ mu iti-da (unclear to me).

A second partial primary document hit for our Erlenmeyer 152 is BPOA 1, 767 (=BM 107053), corresponding to Erl. 152, obv. iv 19 - v 1 (below). Both new texts were dated to the 9th month of the year of Erl. 152 (SS 2; note to CDLJ 2003:1, n. 34 and correct v 1 to kišib ˹2˺! lu₂-gi-na), as was Princeton 1, 380, that exhibited similar irregularities (CDLJ 2003:1, n. 19).