Why Ward and Loving CAD Share the Same 2026 Mineral File Layout PDF

Direct answer for mineral owners

The Ward and Loving CAD 2026 certified mineral-roll ZIPs retrieved August 31, 2026 contain an inner member with the same name, 46,370-byte length, and complete-file SHA-256. That proves the two retrieved inner PDFs are byte-identical. It does not reveal why both districts host the file, who created it, whether it applies to either data export, or whether any record is correct.

Key takeaways for mineral owners

• The two outer ZIPs are different byte objects with different sizes and SHA-256 values.
• Each selected inner member is named 2. MINERAL FILE LAYOUT.pdf, contains 46,370 bytes, and has the same complete-file SHA-256.
• A matching complete-file hash establishes byte identity for the two retrieved inner objects, not authorship, origin, applicability, accuracy, or legal effect.
• The embedded PDF Title says MINERAL FILE LAYOUT.xlsx even though the archive member uses the PDF extension; the source does not explain the mismatch.
• No owner-level roll, TXT, CSV, account, address, email, or property record was opened or reproduced for this comparison.

Byte identity, not shared authority. This page compares two official publisher routes, two exact outer archive retrievals, and one selected inner member from each archive. It does not identify a file author or originator; validate layout meaning, current applicability, TXT or CSV conformance, or record accuracy; inspect or reproduce owner-level data; establish ownership, title, acreage, production, appraisal, tax, private mineral-rights value, offer quality, or legal effect; or recommend a transaction. Any later MRX assessment is directional only and is not an appraisal performed by a state-licensed or state-certified real estate appraiser. This page is not legal, tax, title, accounting, engineering, or investment advice. MRX provides educational information and resources only and does not buy mineral rights.

The direct answer is: the Ward and Loving CAD 2026 archives retrieved August 31, 2026 contain byte-identical copies of 2. MINERAL FILE LAYOUT.pdf. Each selected member is 46,370 bytes and has SHA-256 f0b34cc4b7a96e6cd5480f350f28554b3af72fc9cfd45959763f76d0aef1b020.

That complete-file match establishes that the two retrieved inner PDFs contain the same bytes. The reviewed sources do not state why both archives contain the file, who created it, which district first received it, or whether it describes either district’s TXT or CSV export. Those questions remain unanswered.

Start with two separate publisher lanes

The Ward CAD Data and Records page displays a 2026 certified mineral appraisal roll ZIP link. The exact Ward 2026 ZIP retrieved from that route is one controlled outer container.

The Loving CAD Data and Records page separately displays its 2026 certified mineral appraisal roll ZIP link. The exact Loving 2026 ZIP retrieved from that route is a second controlled outer container.

The two source chains should not be collapsed:

Evidence lane	Official publisher route	Outer ZIP bytes	Outer ZIP SHA-256
Ward	Ward CAD Data and Records	35,266,126	7993b427ee51193ce86d5490102054e2e30e26f5811cacfd3791819803d07752
Loving	Loving CAD Data and Records	53,251,242	b55aaa930f85eeb684ca5784af7280f169e1f226624369fcdc60e15b21da3ce6

Different byte counts and hashes establish that these outer ZIPs are different byte objects. The Ward page and Ward archive establish the Ward retrieval relationship. The Loving page and Loving archive establish the Loving retrieval relationship. One district’s route is not evidence for the other district’s archive.

The selected inner members match byte for byte

After the separate outer containers are preserved, the selected inner-file comparison is simple:

Control	Ward selected member	Loving selected member	Result
Archive member name	2. MINERAL FILE LAYOUT.pdf	2. MINERAL FILE LAYOUT.pdf	Match
Uncompressed bytes	46,370	46,370	Match
Complete-file SHA-256	f0b34cc4b7a96e6cd5480f350f28554b3af72fc9cfd45959763f76d0aef1b020	f0b34cc4b7a96e6cd5480f350f28554b3af72fc9cfd45959763f76d0aef1b020	Match
Physical pages	8	8	Match
Page size	Letter	Letter	Match
Encryption	None observed	None observed	Match
Rotation	0	0	Match

SHA-256 operates over the complete file bytes. For these two retrieved inner objects, the identical complete-file hash means every compared byte is the same. Equal filenames or sizes alone would not establish that result; the complete-file hash does.

This is a dated retrieval finding, not a promise about future downloads. If either publisher later serves different bytes, preserve the later retrieval as a new source state with its own date, outer archive hash, member size, and inner-member hash.

What the matching hash does not answer

A byte-identical file can appear in two publisher-controlled archives without the file itself revealing the publication history. The matching hash does not answer:

1. who authored the layout;
2. which district, vendor, or system originated it;
3. how or when each publisher received it;
4. whether both districts intended the same use;
5. whether the file is current for either archive;
6. whether either TXT or CSV export conforms to it;
7. whether any field label, record, or interpretation is accurate.

Those are separate claims requiring separate evidence. The careful answer is not that one district copied another, that a common vendor authored the file, or that the layout must apply everywhere. None of those explanations is established by the reviewed sources.

Preserve the embedded-title mismatch

The archive member name is 2. MINERAL FILE LAYOUT.pdf, and the bytes parse as a PDF. The embedded PDF Title metadata value is MINERAL FILE LAYOUT.xlsx.

That mismatch is useful for document control because it can help distinguish three separate labels:

Label layer	Observed value	Safe conclusion
Archive member name	2. MINERAL FILE LAYOUT.pdf	Name assigned to the member inside each reviewed ZIP
Parsed format	PDF 1.6	Format observed for the retrieved bytes
Embedded Title metadata	MINERAL FILE LAYOUT.xlsx	Literal metadata value preserved as observed

The mismatch does not prove that an XLSX source file exists, that the PDF was exported from a spreadsheet, that the title is erroneous, or that either publisher intended a particular workflow. No cause is assigned.

Keep Article 274 as the page-map owner

The Loving CAD eight-page position and EOF map already owns the internal navigation job for this exact byte object. That page identifies the physical-page sequence, visible table header, detailed position ranges, 2026 change block, and unresolved SITUS and EOF mismatch.

This Article 309 does not repeat that map. Its distinct job is cross-publisher provenance:

• two official records pages;
• two different outer ZIP byte identities;
• two matching inner-member byte identities;
• one metadata-versus-member-name mismatch;
• a bounded statement of what byte identity proves;
• explicit stops on authorship, origin, applicability, conformance, and record-level claims.

If the question is where a position appears inside the eight-page file, use Article 274. If the question is whether the Ward and Loving retrieved inner PDFs are the same bytes and how to cite them without collapsing publisher provenance, use this page.

Use an inference-limit register

The file match is strongest when every observation is paired with a stop condition.

Observation	Evidence status	Supported statement	Do not infer
Ward publisher page links a Ward ZIP	VERIFIED-OBSERVATION	Ward publisher-to-archive relationship	Loving provenance or archive validity
Loving publisher page links a Loving ZIP	VERIFIED-OBSERVATION	Loving publisher-to-archive relationship	Ward provenance or archive validity
Outer ZIP hashes differ	SOURCE-HASH	Two different retrieved outer byte objects	Why their contents differ
Inner PDF hashes match	BYTE-IDENTITY	Two selected inner byte objects are identical	Author, origin, transfer path, or intended use
Embedded title ends in .xlsx	METADATA-OBSERVATION	Literal embedded title differs from member extension	Existence of an XLSX source or conversion history
Layout has eight pages	VERIFIED-OBSERVATION	Physical-page count for the matching bytes	Completeness, correctness, or current applicability
TXT and CSV files exist elsewhere in each archive	EXCLUDED-SCOPE	Separate data members are present in the outer containers	Record conformance, encoding, row parity, or field meaning

This format helps prevent an accurate hash observation from being stretched into a broader unsupported story.

Claim, evidence, and limit map

Claim ID	Evidence role	Supported statement	Limit
C309-01	VERIFIED-OBSERVATION	Ward CAD’s records page displays and links its 2026 certified mineral appraisal roll ZIP.	Ward publisher route only
C309-02	SOURCE-HASH	The Ward ZIP has the recorded bytes and complete-file SHA-256.	Container identity is not record validation
C309-03	VERIFIED-OBSERVATION	Loving CAD’s records page displays and links its 2026 certified mineral appraisal roll ZIP.	Loving publisher route only
C309-04	SOURCE-HASH	The Loving ZIP has the recorded bytes and complete-file SHA-256.	Container identity is not record validation
C309-05	BYTE-IDENTITY	Both selected layout members have the same name, bytes, and complete-file SHA-256.	No author, origin, intent, or applicability finding
C309-06	METADATA-OBSERVATION	The embedded PDF title ends in .xlsx while the member name ends in .pdf.	No cause or source-file history inferred
C309-07	NON-VALIDATING	Page count, page size, rotation, and encryption state match.	No correctness, completeness, or conformance finding
C309-08	PRIVACY-STOP	No owner-level member was reopened, sampled, searched, copied, or published.	No person, account, address, email, or property conclusion
C309-09	CANONICAL-BOUNDARY	Article 274 remains the owner of the internal eight-page map.	Article 309 does not duplicate the page map or interpret codes
C309-10	ROUTING-ONLY	The Texas Comptroller page routes local appraisal and tax questions.	No file interpretation or property-specific answer

The Texas Comptroller property-tax contacts page is included only for routing. It does not validate either archive, identify the layout author, interpret a field, decide whether the layout applies, or answer an appraisal or tax question.

Do not test owner-level data by accident

Both outer archives include files whose names indicate roll or data exports. This comparison did not reopen, sample, search, copy, index, match, summarize, or publish those owner-level files. It did not reproduce a person, account, address, email, property identifier, field value, or row.

That stop is intentional. Proving that two public layout PDFs are byte-identical does not require reading private-looking or owner-level rows. A later authorized conformance study would need its own necessity test, privacy controls, bounded parser plan, nonpublication rules, deterministic fixtures, discrepancy handling, and legal review. It would remain separate from this article.

For a broader archive-opening and privacy method, use the Midland CAD file-order and privacy guide. For Ward-specific public aggregate evidence, use the Ward CAD 2026 mineral recap. Neither adjacent page turns the shared layout into title, ownership, appraisal, tax, or private-value evidence.

A citation-ready answer

A concise answer can say:

In the Ward and Loving CAD 2026 certified mineral-roll archives retrieved August 31, 2026, each selected 2. MINERAL FILE LAYOUT.pdf member contained 46,370 bytes and matched SHA-256 f0b34cc4b7a96e6cd5480f350f28554b3af72fc9cfd45959763f76d0aef1b020. That proves the two retrieved inner files are byte-identical; it does not identify an author or origin, establish current applicability, or validate either district’s data exports.

Attach both publisher pages, both exact outer archive URLs, the retrieval date, both outer archive hashes, and the matching inner-member hash. That evidence package keeps provenance visible instead of citing the inner PDF as though it had only one publisher context.

Frequently asked questions

Are the Ward and Loving CAD 2026 mineral file-layout PDFs identical?

The two exact members retrieved August 31, 2026 have the same 46,370 bytes and the same complete-file SHA-256, so those two retrieved inner objects are byte-identical.

Does the matching hash prove that one district created the file?

No. The matching hash proves complete-byte identity for the two retrieved members. It does not identify an author, originator, transfer path, publication history, or reason both archives contain it.

Why keep the publisher pages and outer ZIPs separate?

Each publisher page links its own archive, and the two outer ZIPs have different byte counts and hashes. Ward provenance supports the Ward retrieval; Loving provenance supports the Loving retrieval.

Does the shared layout prove that the TXT or CSV exports conform?

No. This review did not open or test either district’s TXT or CSV member. The matching layout PDF alone cannot establish record length, encoding, delimiter behavior, field mapping, row parity, or semantic conformance.

Why does the PDF metadata title end in XLSX?

The embedded Title value is MINERAL FILE LAYOUT.xlsx while the archive member name ends in .pdf. The reviewed sources do not state why, so the mismatch remains an observation rather than an explanation.

Practical conclusion for mineral owners

The citation-ready conclusion is narrow: the Ward and Loving CAD 2026 archives reviewed here contain byte-identical copies of the same 46,370-byte mineral file-layout PDF. Preserve the two publisher pages and different outer archives as separate provenance lanes. Treat the matching inner hash as proof of complete-byte identity only. Stop before claiming a shared author, origin, intended use, current applicability, export conformance, record accuracy, ownership, title, appraisal, tax result, private value, offer quality, or legal effect.

If a later question concerns a possible transaction, use the next-step page for MRX’s process while keeping public file provenance separate from owner-level records, title evidence, directional assessment, offer review, and deal terms. MRX provides educational information and resources only and does not buy mineral rights, and any assessment remains directional rather than an appraisal performed by a state-licensed or state-certified real estate appraiser.

Search Atlas visibility, rankings, answer-engine retrieval, and LLM citations, if later observed, are dated distribution KPIs. They do not validate the source, prove applicability, or establish a property-specific conclusion.

---

Published by the MRX Editorial Team. This article is educational and source-control oriented. It is not legal, tax, title, accounting, engineering, investment, appraisal, protest, privacy, data-governance, or transaction advice. MRX assessments are directional and are not appraisals performed by state-licensed or state-certified real estate appraisers. MRX provides educational information and resources only and does not buy mineral rights.

Sources

• Ward CAD Data and Records, accessed August 31, 2026.
• Ward CAD 2026 Certified Mineral Appraisal Roll ZIP, accessed August 31, 2026.
• Loving CAD Data and Records, accessed August 31, 2026.
• Loving CAD 2026 Certified Mineral Appraisal Roll ZIP, accessed August 31, 2026.
• Texas Comptroller property-tax contacts, accessed August 31, 2026.

Frequently asked questions

Are the Ward and Loving CAD 2026 mineral file-layout PDFs identical?

The two exact members retrieved August 31, 2026 have the same 46,370 bytes and the same complete-file SHA-256, so those two retrieved inner objects are byte-identical.

Does the matching hash prove that one district created the file?

No. The matching hash proves complete-byte identity for the two retrieved members. It does not identify an author, originator, transfer path, publication history, or reason both archives contain it.

Why keep the publisher pages and outer ZIPs separate?

Each publisher page links its own archive, and the two outer ZIPs have different byte counts and hashes. Ward provenance supports the Ward retrieval; Loving provenance supports the Loving retrieval.

Does the shared layout prove that the TXT or CSV exports conform?

No. This review does not open or test either district’s TXT or CSV member. The matching layout PDF alone cannot establish record length, encoding, delimiter behavior, field mapping, row parity, or semantic conformance.

Why does the PDF metadata title end in XLSX?

The embedded Title value is MINERAL FILE LAYOUT.xlsx while the archive member uses the PDF extension. The reviewed sources do not state why, so the mismatch remains an observation rather than an explanation.

Sources reviewed for this article

• Ward CAD Data and Records page (accessed 2026-08-31)
• Ward CAD 2026 Certified Mineral Appraisal Roll ZIP (accessed 2026-08-31)
• Loving CAD Data and Records page (accessed 2026-08-31)
• Loving CAD 2026 Certified Mineral Appraisal Roll ZIP (accessed 2026-08-31)
• Texas Comptroller property-tax contacts (accessed 2026-08-31)