How this list was built, and why
A short note on method, because a list like this should be able to explain its own shape.
Two pages already promised what this one would be. The evidence guide told readers this page sets the material out as something they can work through item by item. The what-to-do guide told them it goes further on each category and on who to address. Both promises were located and read before a word of this page was written. The second one turned out to be the more useful instruction, because a check of both siblings found that neither actually maps recipients: one contains no addressee statements at all, and the other refers to recipients three times without ever saying who each item's recipient is.
So every line carries its addressee. That is the genuinely new material here and it is the reason the page exists rather than being a summary of two others. Preservation usually fails not because the wording was wrong but because one letter went to an insurance company while the vehicles sat in a yard, the records sat with a carrier, and the footage sat on a shop's recorder that overwrote itself the following week.
The order is decay, not importance. Our attorney vetting checklist groups by subject because nothing on it expires. This one cannot, so it runs hours, days, weeks, and then a fourth group tied to an event rather than a clock. Sorted by importance, a reader would chase the driver qualification file while a camera cycle closed.
Nothing asks the reader to go anywhere. The likeliest reader is injured or is a relative in a hospital corridor. Every item is a request made to somebody else, and no item sends anybody to a scene, a yard or a vehicle. The read-out counts what has been done and says nothing whatever about whether a case is strong, weak or worth anything, because this site publishes no case valuations and doing so here would be indefensible.
