One of the hidden fundamental facets of such an undertaking is whether the document to be examined is intact and serves as a genuine consultation of the event. The presence of six articles – or perhaps seven – at the conference would be an appropriate but modest model for such a study, because in such circumstances there is always a secondary interest: who created this seventh provision with this Accord status? Bradford`s History (1912/1968, Vol. 2, p. 201-202) did not repeat this additional statement, but, as noted above, the recording or exclusion of several of these subjects to Mourt and Bradford was mentioned in a footnote in this volume (p. 201). With only a slight twist, the same puzzle can be considered for the Compact, since Mourt`s original reading did not attach the signatories to its version. The desire to add these names later made sense from a historical point of view, and the traditional images of the event represent a group of men – not women – who sign something.  Prince`s revelation that Morton and Bradford`s work presented his Compact, accompanied by the names of the supporters (1736, p. 85 and 1826, p. 172), it was conveyed by Young, who announced that he had added “this list of Prince, who found it at the end of Gov`s MS. Bradford” (1841, 122 and 1844, 122). Cheever simply repeated the prince`s behaviour (1848, p. 27).
Editorial remarks in Bradford3 examined the course that was taken to first locate and then add this inventory to the compact text: “Bradford does not give here a list of signatories to this compact. Morton must have had different authority over the names he attached to him at the Memorial, or he delivered it by assumptions from Bradford`s list of passengers in appendix. If we assume that this pact was signed by all adult male passengers, it seems that other names should have been taken, except those given by Morton” (1856, p. 90; Added value). While appearing in Mourt, he chose Morton, Prince and Bradford for his group of previous registrants (1865/1969, p.