Since the initial publication, the documentary record has evolved. Those who expected the open questions to be clarified will be disappointed: they are multiplying, and with each new official statement they become more curious.
Education Committee of 16 June: Administration Corrected
On 16 June 2026, the administration was forced to discuss publicly in the Education Committee a topic it had previously attempted to make disappear under the agenda item "Miscellaneous" — after the committee itself corrected the administration and placed the item on the regular agenda. Committee chair Nicole Voss (CDU) confronted Mayor Olaf Schulze with the fact that clarity had been demanded since February: "Quite a long time that we have let pass." In the same session, Schulze publicly stated that a retroactive structural fall protection at the façade was not feasible. This raises a first question: exactly when was this examined, by whom, and why does this finding not appear in any of the documents available so far?
The ventilation concept presented as a solution in spring — retrofitting skylights towards the corridor — was declared impractical in the same session, according to the school management "far too loud". Asked about the CO₂ measurement logs, the mayor was unable to provide information; the school principal had to intervene from the public gallery and confirmed that the critical red measurement range is reached continuously and very quickly. As the only currently pursued measure, the administration mentioned the trial conversion of a single classroom during the summer holidays, with an open outcome. After six years of documented awareness of the problem, this is the current state: one trial room, one open outcome.
Safety Glass Is Not Fall Protection
Three days later, on 19 June 2026, the highest building supervisory authority in the state arrived at a remarkably different picture in a statement on a hazard report concerning the ANS: the administrative conduct of the City of Geesthacht was "not objectionable from a supervisory standpoint". The authority refers to certifications from specialist contractors from 1995 and 2010, according to which the glazing consists of safety glass. Safety glass, however, demonstrably protects only against cuts from glass breakage, not against falling through — which is the actual question of fall protection. No proof of fall-preventing properties is named in the statement. Why does a supervisory assessment rely on evidence that does not address the actually relevant safety question at all?
A Document That Contradicts Itself
It becomes even more curious on the question of ventilation. The same statement identifies burst ventilation during breaks as the school's regulated procedure, yet elsewhere in the same document the authority acknowledges that there is "a lack of ability to open the windows fully in order to ensure rapid air exchange." Burst ventilation, however, necessarily requires that windows can be opened wide. How can a single official document name a procedure as a solution and in the next sentence deny its structural prerequisite?
Fire Safety: Do the Records Exist, or Not?
The contradictions grow in the area of fire safety too. An official IZG ruling by the City of Geesthacht dated 11 May 2026 confirms that the building permit file contains no written records of the smoke extraction cross-sections for classrooms, corridors and the central break hall. Five weeks later, on 19 June, the same level of administration refers the highest building supervisory authority to an inspection report from 1996 as evidence of proper construction. Two official statements from the same authority, five weeks apart, on the same question: do the records exist, or do they not?
A Pattern, Not Isolated Cases
What follows from this is not a single disputed interpretation, but a pattern: on virtually every central safety question at this school, the City of Geesthacht's statements diverge within a matter of weeks, and they diverge in the same direction, towards the most exculpatory reading. Who provides a binding answer to these questions? And how long does a school building remain in operation whose official documentary record cannot agree with itself on whether the safety requirements are met or not?
