Rotterdam, Rochussenstraat 169 (pandkaart 169a)Stadsarchief Rotterdam · toegang 396-07.75, record item 68198 (inv. 75), minr 54861860; kadaster Delfshaven Sectie C 4453, blok 13/wijk 18 · Stadsarchief Rotterdam, toegang 396-07 (Dienst Bouw- en Woningtoezicht: Pandkaarten), inv. 75, bestand NL-RtSA_396-07_75_68198_01.jpg (Pandkaart Rotterdam, Rochussenstraat 169a; record minr 54861860)Open the original ↗
This ledger lists the questions the research has raised, the answered ones as well as the unanswered, each with the best answer the records now allow and, where recorded, the condition that would take it further. It is kept in the open on purpose. A visitor reading down it should see at a glance which questions are truly still open, which are stuck behind something the project cannot do from a desk, and which are simply answered and kept here so the answer stays visible. It is no wish-list and no to-do list.
Each question carries a status and, where one has been assigned, a desk verdict. Together they separate open or ongoing work from routes marked order-only, bounded-negative, already-held, resolved or closed in some other way. These are working labels, and they do not sort the questions into three tidy groups: older entries vary in how fully they spell out the next condition.
Many open entries wait on something outside the desk. It might be a document not yet digitised, an order at a reading room, a blocked catalogue or contact with a person. Others concern material already held, or older entries whose retry condition has not yet been written down. Whether a route may be run again is decided by the project's research method and its do-not-rechase list, not by this page alone.
A retry gate names an outside condition, one anybody can check, that would have to change before going back was worthwhile: an archive digitising a series, the owner placing an order, a barrier lifting. Fifteen current entries have no such field, so their wording should not be read as saying a gate is missing. A route marked closed stays closed unless its set retry condition is met.
The ledger keeps apart two kinds of entry that are easy to misread. A question can be answered and still have a loose end. A founder's death may be settled and his record held, while one offline birth certificate still has to be ordered. That question is answered, with something left over, and it is not open. And a proper search of a named source, for named years, that turns up nothing is a result in its own right. The digitised press names no factory-nuisance notice for the corner. The project keeps that result and sets it out in .
The project's own false starts are here too. When an earlier draft of this study was set aside, the question of what it had held went into the ledger instead of being dropped. It now sits among the resolved and closed questions, so that nothing quietly disappears.
Some answers were already on the shelf. Asked what the building's later permit history held, the project could trace the chain without ordering anything, because the answer was written on the backs of two cards it already kept.
Rotterdam, Rochussenstraat 169 (pandkaart, verso 169a)Stadsarchief Rotterdam · toegang 396-07.75, record item 68198 (inv. 75), minr 54861860; kadaster Delfshaven Sectie C 4453, blok 13/wijk 18 · Stadsarchief Rotterdam, toegang 396-07 (Dienst Bouw- en Woningtoezicht: Pandkaarten), inv. 75, bestand NL-RtSA_396-07_75_68198_02.jpg (Pandkaart Rotterdam, Rochussenstraat 169a; record minr 54861860)Open the original ↗Rotterdam, Rochussenstraat 169 (pandkaart, verso 169b)Stadsarchief Rotterdam · toegang 396-07.75, record item 68198 (inv. 75), minr 54861860; kadaster Delfshaven Sectie C 4453, blok 13/wijk 18 · Stadsarchief Rotterdam, toegang 396-07 (Dienst Bouw- en Woningtoezicht: Pandkaarten), inv. 75, bestand NL-RtSA_396-07_75_68198_04.jpg (Pandkaart Rotterdam, Rochussenstraat 169a; record minr 54861860)Open the original ↗
> [column heads:] Description · Registry number · Date and number of the permit · Completion (Date · List No.) · Date of habitability
> Founding — 23 May 1899, B&W (permit) 786/1899 — Completion 31 Jan 1952 · List A, 25 March 1952
> Further entry — 169b upper + 1st floor office · permit V 774/48c, 23 Aug 1977
> B.P. change of designated use — B1-305-'87 (1987)
> [technical matrix, rows a–l blank.]
Stadsarchief Rotterdam · Pandkaart (property card) — Rochussenstraat 169a/169b, permit history 1899–1987 · toegang 396-07.75, record item 68198 (inv. 75), minr 54861860; kadaster Delfshaven Sectie C 4453, blok 13/wijk 18 · 1943 · Open the original ↗
The permit history up to 1987 was read straight off the reverses of those two cards, and the two later files, from 2002, came from an online address index instead. Finding and reading the files behind the later lines would still mean a request at the archive. But the shape of the answer was already in hand, and this ledger keeps that difference visible.
Open questions 32
Status: i · desk verdict: n 1
priority
question
current best
retry gate
P1
Who worked inside Rochussenstraat 169 — the trades, the numbers, the pay and the labour relations, 1901-1987?
OPENED AND SUBSTANTIALLY ANSWERED 2026-08-20 (the dossier previously had NO labour layer). 68 confirmed Rotterdam-169 labour items 1900-1978 identified; retrieval is COMPLETE (reconciled 2026-08-22): 25 masters in evidence/workforce/ plus the batch-2 completion set (dossier record-*, Rochussenstraat 169 labour and household advertisements, 1900-1978 — the second retrieval batch) in evidence/workforce_batch2/. Established: the trades (documented claim), the 1907 ten-hour day and wage settlement conceded by the firm (documented claim), the 1923 city-wide strike that hit the Beens works, reported as 'Ruim 250 gezellen zijn in staking' across Rotterdam rather than as a 169 headcount (documented claim), and two hard domestic wage figures (documented claim). WORKFORCE SIZE REMAINS UNKNOWN at every date. A bounded 2026-08-31 Delpher ddd/dts pass of 39 exact-address, firm-name, personnel-strength, anniversary, inspection, and count queries found no numeric local headcount tied to the works at no. 169; no scan was acquired because no genuine local figure was found. The only collective trace remains the 1978 death notice signed 'Gezamenlijk Personeel'. Two real silences remain confirmed: nothing links labour to no. 169 between 1924 and 1938, and nothing after 1978.
none - retrieval complete (68 labour items 1900-1978, reconciled 2026-08-22); no open desk frontier
Status: i · desk verdict: n 1
priority
question
current best
retry gate
P0
Who lived in the upper-floor flats (169a/b/c) year by year, 1901-1940?
CENSUS built from the Rotterdam adresboeken (research/topics/address_169_census.md): continuous 1901-1923 + 1928-1931 + 1939. Key residents/occupants: painter Gerrit van Duffelen at 169b 1913-1923; Cornelis Pelt at 169c through 1921; Beens at the 169 works by 1920; Continental Carpet & Furnishing Co. at 169a 1928-1931; J. J. van der Welle (bookkeeper) 169b 1923. Earliest trace 1906. ADRESBOEK ROUTE EXHAUSTED (reconciled 2026-08-22): the former 1924-27 + 1932-38 'gaps' are closed or have no source — 1924-25 read from the street-list master and 1926-27 + 1934-35 via the name-list surname route (documented claim, documented claim); 1932-33 + 1936-38 have NO adresboek edition at all (permanent source gap, not an OCR failure). GEZINSKAARTEN FIRST-PASS 2026-08-16: the four 169-household cards LOCATED (van Duffelen srt:FCEE406D, Pelt srt:322171AA, Beens H.P. srt:DF2AEE25, van Duijn srt:75A3FB43 → dossier record-*, research/sessions/2026-08-16_gezinskaarten_firstpass.md). BACK-SCANS RETRIEVED + READ 2026-08-16 (full-res masters saved to evidence/gezinskaarten/, dossier record-*): **Pelt** at 169c to 22-3-1921 (documented claim); **Beens H.P.** at 169b 12-8-1927 -> 169c 30-12-1929 -> London 3-8-1931 (documented claim); a **van Duijn** household at 169b from 8-12-1931 (from Rochussenstraat 171) (documented claim); **van Duffelen** family at 169, left for Zeist 4-5-1921 (documented claim). So the 169a/b/c sub-unit occupancy is now bracketed by primary registration dates; the adresboek route for the OTHER (non-principal) tenants is likewise exhausted (either read, or no edition exists); the only remaining named-resident unknowns are the anonymous 1928 169b maid household and Van Kleef's first name at 169c c.1950. NB the Rotterdam gezinskaarten (494-03) are now known to be DIGITISED + name-searchable online (not reading-room only). The anonymous 1911 'widow' ad is NOT a Rotterdam gap — reassessed as a Den Haag misattribution (see What was the name of the 1911 widowed 'werkvrouw' who used 169 as her contact address?).
No adresboek edition exists for 1932-33 / 1936-38 (permanent gap, effectively never). The year-by-year adresboek + gezinskaart route is exhausted; the two named residuals (1928 169b maid gezinskaart, Van Kleef c.1950) need CBG (paid).
Status: i · desk verdict: n 1
priority
question
current best
retry gate
P1
What was Furnishco (1936) — and is it a liquidation vehicle for a prior 169 tenant?
PRINCIPALS PARTLY CONFIRMED ONLINE (2026-08-31): the 1928 Rotterdam address book names H. P. Beens as director of Continental Carpet and Furnishing Company at Rochussenstraat 169b; a Handelsregister notice published 17 January 1928 records withdrawal of F. J. Beens's procuration from the same company at 169a. A further notice published 17 November 1931 names H. P. Beens of London as a new commissioner and states that he had been director. These sources establish a distinct, genuinely trading Beens-directed N.V. with continued H. P. Beens involvement, not the claim that Furnishco was merely a liquidation vehicle. No online notice located in the bounded 1927-1937 sweep names the replacement director or a legal liquidator; the 1936 'Likwidatie Uitverkoop' ad names none.
NA KvK Handelsregister dossier (toegang 3.17.17.01) for the named principals; the HERE adresboek + press routes are confirmed exhausted.
Status: i · desk verdict: n 3
priority
question
current best
retry gate
P2
What do the post-1899 building dossiers for no. 169 contain — the 1977 office conversion, the 1987 change of use, and any venue-era works?
The permit CHAIN is now established without any new retrieval, from the pandkaarten the project already held: 1899 founding (B.W. 786/1899) -> completion inspection 31 Jan 1952 -> 1977 office conversion of 169b -> 1987 change of designated use -> 2002 facade/foundation works (documented claim). The 1899 dossier is digitised and all four of its scans are already held at native resolution. Nothing is indexed for 1938, 1989 or 1994.
P2
The Beens long tail: when did F. J. Beens die, what did H. P. Beens do between 1931 and 1946, and is the Coolsingel showroom sequence photographable?
Substantially advanced. 2026-09-02 (Item 7, regional press outside Delpher: nha.courant.nu Haarlem/Kennemerland + schiedam.courant.nu) moved the two Beens long-tail threads. (1) F. J. BEENS DEATH CRACKED - died Heemstede 3 Jan 1980, aged 86 (documented claim; supersedes documented claim); identity clinched by the furnishing-trade adresboek entry (Javalaan 53, Heemstede) and widow A. Ph. Beens-Hamers. (2) H. P. BEENS - his post-London life was already reconstructed (Amsterdam 1946, RIJSWIJK 1948, Rotterdam textielfabrikant 1951, died Voorburg 1966; documented claim). The new motel finding ADDS to and corroborates the Rijswijk period: by 1956 an H. P. Beens directed Motel Hoornwijck, Rijswijk - the Netherlands' first motel (documented claim, PROBABLE but strongly consistent with the Rijswijk-1948 -> Voorburg-1966 biography, filling the Rijswijk gap). Also: the Beens matriarch Alida van Cittert d. Rotterdam-Overschie ~30 Jul 1950 aged 83 (documented claim). Living-descendant leads (F. J. Beens's daughters A. Ingenhousz-Beens + A. J. van Gastel-Beens, Heemstede) are in the private outreach file. Residual owner-action: bind H. P. Beens to Motel Hoornwijck via a Handelsregister / Rijswijk record; the 1928 illustrated liquidation-auction catalogue survival (Does the illustrated catalogue for the N.V. Beens Woninginrichting liquidation art-and-antiquities sale of 19 June 1928 survive, and can its lots be traced to later auction or museum provenance?, order-only).
P2
What was the outcome of the August 1945 collaboration investigation into the firm P. van Reeuwijk and its directors?
OPENED 2026-08-20 on Giulio's go-ahead. The 1945 notice is retrieved and quoted in full (documented claim): detention 'tot nader onderzoek', suspicion resting on the FIRM, no charge or finding stated. No outcome document exists in the digitised press, but the firm's conduct is inconsistent with an adverse finding — directors signing shareholder notices from December 1945, an 8% dividend over 1946 with shares at 156, 9% in 1948, and a Popken back as directeur by June 1948 and still so in 1955 (documented claim). The CABR would say whether the case was closed, dismissed or prosecuted. AUTHORITY SLICE 2026-08-31: a verified 1942 AGM roster was retrieved as native-page evidence and drafted as a strictly dated corporate-authority fact. The required SOL 5.6-medium person-level sensitivity challenge could not run because the environment blocked the gateway call, so the named roster remains STAGED and is not accepted knowledge. The sweep does not establish continuity across 1940-1941 or into 1945 and does not change the CABR [ORDER].
Status: o · desk verdict: p 1
priority
question
current best
retry gate
P3
Give bytes to the primary-document sources still held as permalink-only.
GROUP (b) COMPLETED 2026-08-31. Both Delpher items had already been re-found and retain their verified URNs and held masters: MMKB15:000652093:mpeg21:a00017 and MMKB32:164694004:mpeg21:a00100; no bytes were re-grabbed. The 1901 Van Hattem address-book entry was re-found at Stadsarchief Rotterdam 3023-45, p. 106, minr 1927745, handle E54FE0A976D44716BDAA0E221A16112F, and its source-native page is held and bound. All four Wille legacy prefixes are now full: saa:bb08d7ab-a4cc-49a3-aa42-374f19b403e0, nha:586335BA-0835-4276-9C8F-E79BA669BE8D, gld:9245D594-5F1F-42E9-8564-B9A07DD1AA7B, and srt:AF95FAE3-9FED-4F69-B983-2BB907D74CD5. The SAA item proved to be a population-register registration, not a standalone birth act; its full-size scan is held. Both NHA parents-entry pages are held, with the unique second page newly registered and bound; SHA-256 checking prevented duplicate registration of the pre-existing first page. The 1913 SRT marriage bytes were already held under BS Rotterdam huwelijk 24-09-1913 — August Frans Anton Maria Wille x Helena Antonia von der Moehlen, and the GLD death record is accurately retained as index-only because it publishes zero scans. Primary-document sources without linked evidence are now 15, down from the reviewed pre-pass count of 17. Groups (a), (c), (d), and the 34 byteless confirmed facts were not worked.
none - the enumerated permalink-only primary sources now hold bytes (group (b) + all four Wille legacy prefixes completed 2026-08-31); reopen only if a new permalink-only primary source is added
Status: o · desk verdict: p 1
priority
question
current best
retry gate
P3
Did a specific 1900-1901 Rotterdam raadsbesluit / Gemeenteblad formally RESERVE nos. 1-168 for the projected eastern Rochussenstraat, or did the number emerge from the plan's plot subdivision counted from the east?
Strong circumstantial proof exists (169 in the 1901 adresboek; the street conceived as one line to the centre; low numbers = the later-built east), but the exact 1900 numbering decision has not been consulted.
Reading-room [ONSITE]: the Rotterdam Gemeenteverslag 1900-01 is NOT digitised (verified 2026-09-01); the exact 1900 numbering decision needs the Stadsarchief.
SIDECARS REGENERATED 2026-08-31: _registry/unify_evidence.py generated companions for all 2,405 existing registered evidence files (0 missing), including the dossier record-* photodump. The active 1858 Schoonderloo map path was already corrected before this pass and its bytes match the registered SHA-256, so a no-op correction is neither needed nor permitted. The WORM .aaa -> .html path-only correction and 9 local-only catalog_ref/creator-marker proposals were drafted but remain STAGED: review preview fails closed because each touched legacy evidence row lacks the symmetric primary source binding now required by candidate.primary_source_drift; adding prerequisite bindings would exceed the path-only/local-only instruction. CURRENT WHOLE-REGISTRY REMAINING = 725 of 967 media rows thin on creator, catalog_ref, or permalink (generator definition). This supersedes the old 78-of-344 count after later evidence imports; the 9 local candidates remain within the 725 and are not counted as backfilled because creator unknown is only an explicit null marker. The approximately 62 live bot-blocked lookups from the older cohort were not attempted.
Verified archive permalinks via live (currently bot-gated) Beeldbank/Delpher lookups, or a Discogs auth token. The 2 filename fixes + full sidecar coverage are done; the 9 catalog/creator candidates are source-free legacy rows blocked by the primary_source_drift gate.
Status: o · desk verdict: p 5
priority
question
current best
retry gate
P3
Obtain a licensed copy of the 1952 aerial XII-202-11-01, the first overhead view of no. 169 in the dossier.
Licensed copy order for the 1952 aerial XII-202-11-01.
Does the illustrated catalogue for the N.V. Beens Woninginrichting liquidation art-and-antiquities sale of 19 June 1928 survive, and can its lots be traced to later auction or museum provenance?
Physical survival check at an archive/library; not desk-retrievable.
P0
What legal instrument or Handelsregister mutation formally transferred or absorbed Firma Kam & Van Rhijn into the Beens group?
Sources prove association by November 1918, operational transfer and continuation at Beens Coolsingel 56 from January 1920, and a shared Beens showroom at Coolsingel 49 by September 1922. No retrieved deed, asset-transfer instrument or Handelsregister mutation proves the formal legal mechanism.
Beens Handelsregister dossier 049724 (NL-HaNA 3.17.17.01/1214) + underlying partnership instruments; no digitised instrument proves the formal legal mechanism.
[ORDER] What registered maker marks or labels survive for Van Duffelen & Pelt, N.V. Beens / Beens Woninginrichting, and Fa. J. A. van Duyn in Nationaal Archief toegang 2.06.092?
NA toegang 2.06.092 merkdossiers (physical, not digitised) - owner order / reading-room.
P0
Who owned no. 169 across 1901 -> 2019 (the legal ownership chain)?
2009 developer = MICO ontwikkelingscombinatie (private; 33 koopwoningen; architect Van Herk & De Kleijn). Owners since 1 Jul 2019: Giulio Colla & Diletta Desimoni. The 1987–2009 legal owner (through the van Duyn closure, Duinpaleis and the Dodorama/WORM squat) is still UNDOCUMENTED in open sources.
PRESS-NEGATIVE FOLDED 2026-09-02 (deleg-2026-09-02-partAB, item A4): a bounded Delpher kranten sweep for a Rochussenstraat 169 owner/sale/mortgage/transport notice, 1899–2009 (title collections KBDDD/ddd/MMKB/KBPERS/KBNRC under coll=ddd), returned a bounded negative across three query families. (1) 1898-99 plot-sale family — "bouwterrein s-Gravendijkwal", "bouwgrond s-Gravendijkwal", "verkooping bouwterreinen Coolpolder", "Rochussenstraat hoek s-Gravendijkwal verkooping", "meubelfabriek Rochussenstraat verkooping" (1896-1901 window): zero buyer-naming hits — only Coolpolder-terrain city context and unrelated Van Duffelen & Pelt firm/name-list matches. (2) 1901-1990 auction/mortgage/transport family on the base string "Rochussenstraat 169" filtered by + veiling / + hypotheek / + executoriale / + notaris / + verkooping: hypotheek=0, executoriale=0; the veiling/verkooping/notaris hits (1936, 1940, 1978-79) are all furniture-STOCK sale or shop-lease ads (e.g. the 1940 Maasbode Kruyne & Jonker vendu notice), never a property transfer; the broader "winkelhuis pakhuis Rochussenstraat verkooping" sweep (1899-1935) resolved to Den Haag auction columns and a different Rotterdam parcel. (3) 1987-2009 vacancy/squat-era family — "Rochussenstraat 169" + gekraakt / kraakpand / gesloopt: zero hits; occupancy-only items surfaced instead (1989 Duinpaleis, 1989-90 festivals/Cuartito Azul, 1994-2000 Dodorama), none naming an owner or landlord. Result across all three families: ZERO owner/sale/mortgage/transport notice for Rochussenstraat 169 in the digitised Delpher press, 1899–2009; the ownership chain is not resolvable from the digitised press; it requires Kadaster (vroegere eigenaren), notarial transport deeds, the 2009 splitsingsakte and/or KvK/VvE records, as already listed under would_resolve. Full method + query log: _work/sessions/ownership-notices-2026-09-02/FINDINGS.md.
owner action (HOME): Kadaster 'vroegere eigenaren opvragen' (terug tot 1838, ~EUR330) + 2009 splitsingsakte + notarial transportakten (Stadsarchief); KvK on MICO; VvE splitsingsakte — see would_resolve; start free via the own 2019 koopakte -> previous owner + notary. The Delpher newspaper route for owner/sale/mortgage/auction notices (query families veiling/verkoop/verkooping/hypotheek/notaris/executie, collections ddd/KBDDD/MMKB/KBPERS/KBNRC, 1899–2009) was run to zero on 2026-09-02 and is EXHAUSTED — do not re-run those queries. Newly digitised or non-Delpher newspaper collections, and any non-press route, remain legitimate future routes.
Status: o · desk verdict: p 4
priority
question
current best
retry gate
P1
Did Rochussenstraat 169 hold a Hinderwet (nuisance) permit as a furniture factory, and what did its machine inventory and workshop plan look like?
Series LOCATED 2026-08-20 (documented claim) — first time this source was searched. The digitised press carries no Hinderwet notice for no. 169 despite carrying many for the same street (documented claim), so the press route is exhausted. Independent evidence that a permit-worthy plant existed: the firm advertised 'Fabriek Rochussenstraat No. 169' from 13-01-1909 (De Maasbode) through the Beens years to 1925.
P1
Who is still alive who remembers no. 169, and has any of them been recorded?
NOT STARTED as recording. Contact exists with the Pelt/Eland branch and produced the project's only likeness of Cornelis Pelt, but no interview. No former van Duyn staff member, customer or neighbour is named anywhere in the record, so track B is the only route to them.
P2
Is the present-day 'Van Duijn Projektinrichting B.V.' (Rotterdam) a continuation of / related to Fa. J. A. van Duijn (Rochussenstraat 169, closed 1987)?
UPDATE 2026-08-20: a press sweep for a successor/takeover/continuation of Fa. J. A. van Duyn after the 30 Oct-5 Nov 1987 closing-down sale returned NOTHING (documented claim) — the firm simply stops advertising, so the press cannot bridge 1987 -> the 1988 BV. Also checked: the firm's own KvK dossier (24049735 = Nationaal Archief 3.17.17.02, inv. 9988) has NO scans online (the whole finding aid holds 7 <dao> elements), so it is reading-room/paid at Den Haag. STRONG CIRCUMSTANTIAL LEAD (2026-08-18), NOT proven — upgrades the earlier flat 'namesake, kinship not established'. Five stacking discriminators: (1) same surname van Duijn; (2) same city Rotterdam; (3) same UNUSUAL trade — KvK bedrijfsomschrijving 'woning- en scheepsstoffeerdersbedrijf' = exactly the 'Woninginrichting en Scheepsstoffering' that Fa. J. A. van Duijn's own 1978 staff death-notice records for 169 (documented claim); (4) TIMING — Fa. J. A. van Duijn's opheffingsuitverkoop was 30 Oct-5 Nov 1987 and the BV was registered ~May 1988 (Oozo), i.e. ~6 months later; (5) the firm markets 'sinds 1958', inside the Fa. J. A. van Duijn era. Public business contact (published): Kinderdijkstraat 63-65, tel 010-4321288, site vanduijn-projektinr.nl. Company.info notes a management change 27-02-2026 (still active). EXTENDED (§5.3, 2026-08-18): the BV's CURRENT trade is a VLOERENBEDRIJF/projectinrichter (subfloors + office/shop/school fit-out; Van Duijn Projektinrichting B.V. — public web presence (flooring & project-furnishing, 'sinds 1958')) — a discriminator AGAINST straight continuation, as is its earlier VLAARDINGEN seat (Mercuriusstraat 40) vs the 169 family's Bergschenhoek/Rotterdam roots. No founding-director name is publicly retrievable via OpenKvK/aggregators. Verdict unchanged: kinship NOT established (lead only); the KvK historisch uittreksel remains the decisive [ORDER] step.
FRESH BOUNDED RE-CHECK 2026-08-31: negative, no new founding-director name or oprichting/predecessor chain found. Checked: OpenKvK exact profile (https://openkvk.nl/company/hoofdvestiging-van-duijn-projektinrichting-bv-24170384-19366159; HTTP 403 Cloudflare, blocked); Company.info exact profile (https://companyinfo.nl/organisatieprofiel/afwerken-van-vloeren-en-wanden/van-duijn-projektinrichting-b-v-rotterdam-24170384-000019366159; only partial current management visible, historical management/incorporation paywalled); Oozo exact profile (https://www.oozo.nl/bedrijven/rotterdam/ijsselmonde/lombardijen/130081/van-duijn-projektinrichting-b-v; aggregator with unverifiable provenance, says May 1988 but names no officer); KVK Open Dataset (https://developers.kvk.nl/nl/documentation/open-dataset-basis-bedrijfsgegevens-api and https://opendata.kvk.nl/api/v1/hvds/basisbedrijfsgegevens/24170384; two HTTP 429 responses, while the official schema excludes personal/officer names); current company domain (http://www.vanduijn-projektinr.nl/ redirects to https://www.bastasol.nl/ and contains no Van Duijn/founder/director trace); Drimble (https://drimble.nl/bedrijf/rotterdam/000019366159/van-duijn-projektinrichting-bv.html; aggregator/AI-labelled with unverifiable provenance, gives 31 May 1988 and only later directors Gezinus Goeree and Bernardus Gerhardus Timmer from 1 January 2012, not founders); exact web searches for 24170384/1988/B. A. van Duijn (zero founding-officer result, indexing incomplete); and the 2014 Vereniging Bedrijven Hordijk article (https://www.verenigingbedrijvenhordijk.nl/nieuws/van-duijn-biedt-buren-de-ruimte/; names Ab van Duijn and reports his statement that the business had worked in the trade since 1975, but does not identify the 1988 founder or document predecessor continuity). Full query/outcome/limitation ledger: inv-vanduijn-founding-director-recheck-2026-08-31. The aggregator/free-web route is exhausted within this bounded slice. The five existing stacking discriminators remain circumstantial only. Verdict unchanged: kinship NOT established (lead only). The KvK historisch uittreksel remains the decisive [ORDER] step; it must supply the incorporation, predecessor/continuation chain and founding director before any kinship claim.
P1
What do the Van Duffelen & Pelt notarial deeds themselves say — capital contributions, asset and inventory lists, the partners' signatures, and any real estate?
Mapped 2026-08-20 to exact call slips (documented claim). The 1899 minuut SURVIVES; the 1909 minuut is LOST ('Het archief over de periode 1902-1921 is verloren gegaan'). The deed's substantive terms are nevertheless now known from the Staatscourant text we already held (documented claim), including a TACIT-RENEWAL clause which means a 1920 dissolution deed need never have existed — and no dissolution notice for the firma appears in Delpher.
Status: r · desk verdict: e 1
priority
question
current best
retry gate
P3
Should the Nicolaas Tinbergen autograph series be extended with his eight Rotterdam birth-act signatures (1878-1892)?
RESOLVED 2026-09-15: not needed and not pursued. The architect identification is confirmed, and the signature comparison is already published in the architect-signature method note ("How we read the architect's signature") using the two 1902 Rotterdam permit autographs plus the 1877 marriage exemplar. The eight owner-CAPTCHA-gated 1878-1892 birth-act autographs are therefore needed neither for identification nor for the comparison plate. Closed as a nice-to-have not worth an owner CAPTCHA session on its own.
Reopen only if the owner specifically wants the extended dated 1877-1892 hand-series for a future publication plate; retrieval still needs a cleared Stadsarchief civil-act CAPTCHA session (research/sessions/2026-08-18_stadsarchief_scan_pull.md). Not desk-retrievable.
Status: r · desk verdict: e 3
priority
question
current best
retry gate
P2
Does any pre-1937 pictorial image of the Rochussenstraat 169 facade/corner itself exist (vs the open-meadow area views)?
RESOLVED 2026-09-02. A pre-1937 pictorial image of the Rochussenstraat 169 building DOES exist. The earliest known image is the 1907 photograph captioned 'VOORGEVEL FABRIEK EN MAGAZIJN' in the illustrated trade-press interview 'Over Meubelfabricage: Firma Van Duffelen & Pelt te Rotterdam' (Industrieel Weekblad, 11 Jan 1907, no.32, p.255; issue URN MMIISG23:236195031, page p00003), some thirty years before the previously-earliest held facade view of 1937. See documented claim (source Industrieel Weekblad, 11 Jan 1907, no.32 — 'Over Meubelfabricage: Firma Van Duffelen & Pelt te Rotterdam' (illustrated interview, pp.255-258); evidence evidence item). The same four-page article carries six further photographs of the firm (machine woodworking, cabinet workshop, upholstery shop, a living-room and a bedroom suite it made, and the Witte de Withstraat showroom). The earlier online image-bank NULL stands only for the specific facade-in-city-image-banks channel; the answer came instead from the digitised trade press (Delpher/IISG).
none - RESOLVED 2026-09-02 by documented claim. A still-earlier or markedly clearer facade image (e.g. owner reading-room DOCU49 / Stadsarchief GEB toegang 434 / the 169 Bouw- en Woningtoezicht file) would be an upgrade, not a reopening: the question 'does any pre-1937 image exist' is now answered YES.
P3
Did N.V. Beens' Woninginrichting operate a picture-dealing / art-exhibition business beyond the June-1918 Coolsingel showing?
RESOLVED 2026-09-01. The picture-dealing is a real but BOUNDED art-furnishing vein. It is documented for the JUNE-1918 season by three independent primary sources: the 21 Apr 1918 'modelzaak' opening feature (documented claim), the firm's own 21 Jun 1918 gallery advertisement (documented claim), and NEW this session an independent De Maasbode art-column REVIEW of 23 Jun 1918 (documented claim) describing ~50 paintings by named Dutch masters (Bisschop, Kever, Gabriel, Roelofs, Theophile de Bock, Kuijpers, Briet, Apol, Van Mastenbroek, Rosa Bonheur, Henriette Ronner, Ype Wenning, Isaac Israels) dispersed through the Coolsingel model rooms as 'kunst voor de salon'. The only later art episode is the 1922 Vienna relief lottery whose prizes included paintings shown in the same showroom (documented claim, documented claim). A bounded Delpher sweep of the firm's 1918-1923 press footprint found NO standing commercial gallery, NO second independent exhibition/review, and NO painting sale or auction at Beens.
none for the autonomous desk frontier - the June-1918 art showing is triply documented and the bounded 1918-1923 Delpher sweep is exhausted. The question could only reopen via a physical archive / Handelsregister check or an art-market provenance study (cf. Does the illustrated catalogue for the N.V. Beens Woninginrichting liquidation art-and-antiquities sale of 19 June 1928 survive, and can its lots be traced to later auction or museum provenance?, which tracks the 1928 liquidation art-and-antiquities catalogue).
P1
What was the full identity of builder 'Firma J. van Hattem' (1899–1901)?
RESOLVED. Founder Jan Jansen van Hattem (bapt. 31 Jul 1808, d. 22 Mar 1888 Rotterdam); son Wouter (the '& Zoon', d.1887) ran it; the firm was SOLD to architect N. Tinbergen on 1 Jan 1888. So by the 1899 permit 'firma J. van Hattem' was Tinbergen's office (architect + builder one enterprise). See documented claim, documented claim.
none - residual resolved 2026-09-01 by documented claim (two primary Open Archieven typed civil-index acts). Nothing to re-chase; the Oppert-78 firm is a documented unrelated line and the tie to no. 169 is a bounded negative.
Status: r · desk verdict: e 2
priority
question
current best
retry gate
P3
Do photographic portraits survive for the furniture principals H.P. Beens, P.N. van Reeuwijk, and J.A. van Duyn (we hold a likeness only of Cornelis Pelt)?
BOUNDED HUNT 2026-09-01 (Delpher kranten + Stadsarchief Rotterdam Beeldbank/Collectie Portretten + Geheugen/web). P.N. VAN REEUWIJK: a catalogued portrait EXISTS but is NOT digitised online (order-only): Stadsarchief Rotterdam, Collectie Portretten, toegang 4031, object P-007206, 'Portret van P.N. van Reeuwijk, president-directeur van n.v. mij voor woninginrichting P. van Reeuwijk', photographer Jean Korff, zwart/wit 14x9 cm. Verified 2026-09-01 in the archieven.nl catalogue (record confirms the president-director role = the right man, not his wife nor successor J.A.); the proxy handle 301-redirects back to the record (no online image). This UPGRADES the earlier 'no located portrait' negative to 'a portrait is catalogued and orderable'. (Related non-digitised entries in the same set: P-007205 = J.A. van Reeuwijk the successor-director; P-007207 = the wife J.M. van Reeuwijk-van Walsum, of whom a separate CC0 Ary Groeneveld portrait is already held.) H.P. BEENS: BOUNDED NEGATIVE online - no portrait on Delpher or the Rotterdam Beeldbank (only namesakes: dr. E.J. Beens predikant P-003245, ROTEB director G. de Been, etc.); the only surviving lead is UK National Archives HO 405/2641 (Kew, an aliens' personal file likely holding a passport photo; not digitised, paid copy). J.A. VAN DUYN: BOUNDED NEGATIVE - Delpher 'van Duyn Rochussenstraat' (~192 hits) is all advertisements, no portrait feature; the Beeldbank Portretten holds only an 1813 aristocrat namesake.
Owner order/reading-room: (1) Stadsarchief Rotterdam Collectie Portretten P-007206 (toegang 4031; photographer Jean Korff) to obtain the P.N. van Reeuwijk portrait; (2) UK National Archives HO 405/2641 (Kew) for a possible H.P. Beens passport photo. J.A. van Duyn has no known portrait source - reopen only if a new archival image collection surfaces. The autonomous online desk frontier is exhausted.
P1
What is G. J. van Duffelen's exact death date and place?
RESOLVED: died 4 Nov 1928, s-Gravenhage (not 21 Nov / Zeist). Multiply corroborated. SCAN NOW HELD (2026-09-01): the Haags Gemeentearchief death act (archief 0335-01, Overlijdensakten Den Haag reg. 1888, akte 1928-L169 = No. 169) was retrieved via proxy.archieven.nl and bound as evidence item/-entry with a transcription companion. The act confirms every indexed detail and adds that he died at 1 pm at Haagweg 385, Loosduinen (s-Gravenhage) - away from his Zeist home; birthplace Vlaardingen is act-confirmed. PLACE-OF-DEATH SUB-THREAD RESOLVED 2026-09-01 (documented claim, probable): Haagweg 385, Loosduinen was the address of OUD-ROSENBURG, the Geneeskundig Gesticht voor Krankzinnigen (psychiatric hospital) at Loosduinen - so the VdP co-founder died in an institution. Confirmed by Het Vaderland 27-10-1927 (the gesticht + its 1928 budget) and Het Vaderland 20-03-1945 (Oud Rozenburg, Haagweg 385, Loosduinen), both bound as masters. The declarant Cornelis de Bloois (kantoorbediende, Rotterdam) is a BOUNDED NEGATIVE: the name is too common to fix his identity and no tie to the van Duffelen family or the firm was found (Delpher de Bloois+Duffelen&Pelt = 0). RESIDUAL: the exact birth date (9 Mar 1852) still needs the Vlaardingen 1852 birth act, which is offline (Stadsarchief Vlaardingen archief 1057, not on Open Archieven/WieWasWie).
Owner reading-room/order for the offline 1852 Vlaardingen birth act (Stadsarchief Vlaardingen archief 1057) - the only remaining desk residual. The 2026-09-01 place-of-death sub-thread is closed (documented claim landed; de Bloois = bounded negative); the only way to upgrade that place fact from probable to confirmed is a 1928 Loosduinen/Den Haag adresboek line placing number 385 at Oud-Rosenburg.
Status: r · desk verdict: e 8
priority
question
current best
retry gate
P3
What was the name of the 1911 widowed 'werkvrouw' who used 169 as her contact address?
Almost certainly NOT the Rotterdam building - a Den Haag Rochussenstraat 169 (Schilderswijk) ad misfiled into this dossier; excluded from the Rotterdam people register. See evidence/widow_1911/README.md (corrected) + research/topics/address_169_census.md.
P0
Who was the architect who signed the 1899 permit drawings?
PROBABLE (high confidence): N. Tinbergen — 'N. Tinbergen S.Cz., architect', 1e Lombardstraat 30, Rotterdam. The 1899 adresboek street-list for 1e Lombardstraat no. 30 places the building's BUILDER (van Hattem's Timmermanswerkplaats) and 'N. Tinbergen, architect' at the SAME premises; Tinbergen is the unique architect in the 1899 directory fitting the signature (capital-T crossbar + medial 'b' + '-ber(gen)'; the blind 'Wienbergen/Winbergen' reads = the T misread as W). Molenaar EXCLUDED. **CONFIRMED 2026-08-16** — his 1877 autograph matches the permit signature (shared capital-T crossbar + medial b + -bergen), an 1892 birth act records 'Nicolaas Tinbergen, architect' at 1e Lombardstraat, and he headed the builder firm.
P1
Full names + company details for the Beens and van Reeuwijk directors?
RESOLVED. Beens = brothers Hermanus Petrus Beens (1895-1966) + Fredericus Johannes Beens (b.1893), Haarlem-born sons of Fredericus Cornelis Carolus Nicanor Beens x Alida van Cittert (the father recorded in his sons' marriage acts as magazijnoprichter/kantoorbediende, Rotterdam). van Reeuwijk = Pieter Nicolaas van Reeuwijk (1889-1949); the '1945 N. van Reeuwijk / O. D. Popken' are OCR corruptions of his sons K./J. A. van Reeuwijk + C. D. Popken (Cornelis Diederik Popken, b.1900). See documented claim, documented claim.
P2
For 9 of the 12 'recorded here' releases, is the recording venue actually Rochussenstraat 169, and what is each release's source?
RESOLVED 2026-08-18: all 12 releases verified against the Discogs no-auth API. 10 of 12 carry a release note or title naming Dodorama/WORM as the recording venue — the 3 pre-existing (Sakada, Vershki, Radboud Mens) plus 7 newly sourced this session: Mengelberg 'Live In Holland '97' (rel. 709521, Dodorama 2 Mar 1997), Recyclopedia 'De 3 Charles' Suite' (5683098, Dodorama 21 Dec 1997), R:IP 'Extremen' (2662294, Dodorama May 1999), DMDN 'An Evening With Thu20' (21932851, Dodorama/WORM 6 May 1999), R:IP 'MASSSA' (2662280, Dodorama May 2000), Coxhill/Weston 'Worms Organising Archdukes' (2328725, WORM 17 Mar 2001), Electric Bear 'Live At Worm' (2457337, WORM June 2001). The remaining 2 (Bait/Lokaas 14762014, V:IP 2662347) are compilations whose in-169 recording is unstated → kept venue_stated:false, each now sourced to document why. All wired into discography.yaml (dossier record-*).
P2
Capture the 'WORM 23' oral-history essays (worm.org) — the sole source for several organiser roles at 169.
RESOLVED 2026-08-18. The 'WORM 23' oral history = the 2021 worm.org 'Daily Chaos #N' essay series (NOT the worm.org/projects/worm-23 landing page, which is the 2019 anniversary-PARTY page — assumption corrected). Captured + registered the two 169-relevant essays: #1 Lukas Simonis 'Beginnings' (WORM 23: Daily Chaos #1 'BEGINNINGS!' — Lukas Simonis on the road from Dodorama (169) to WORM, the CAM/RKS road to WORM, board meetings at Dodorama; -> documented claim) and #5 Jeroen Chabot (WORM 23: Daily Chaos #5 'Dodorama >> WORM' — Jeroen Chabot, WORM's first board chairman, WORM's first board chairman; board met at Rochussenstraat 169 incl. 11 Sep 2001; recruited by Doorn/Groot/Beekmans -> documented claim). Essays saved to evidence/companies_evidence/08_worm/worm23/. #4 (Groot) + #6 (Van Gaasbeek) are post-169 and only noted; #2/#3 not yet located (a residual, low-value tail).
P2
Do the superseded old report chapters (report/_OLD_chapters/) hold any SOURCED factual finding that was never drained into the registry — at risk of loss when they are deleted?
RESOLVED 2026-08-20. All 18 old-chapter files were scanned in full (~120 citation-bearing claims); ~95% were already registered; six genuine findings were rescued and recorded in documented claim, with the full per-item report at research/topics/old_report_salvage.md. This field previously read 'NOT started' even though status was already resolved; corrected to match the resolution and prevent a future desk run from re-chasing this as open work (see resolution field, MEMO M-2026-09-01-01).
P2
Why did the first building on the Rochussenstraat already carry the high number 169?
No. 169 reflects the plot's position along the whole projected street from the Eendrachtsplein; the ~168 lower numbers were the later-built (1930s) Dijkzigt stretch across the former Land van Hoboken estate.
P2
What is J. A. van Duijn's exact 1885 birth date (7 Jan vs 21 May)?
RESOLVED — 7 Jan 1885, Bergschenhoek. See documented claim.