Answered from the record set — batch 49 exists (exp-9076-049, "S 9076 #49") and every field in it carries provenance.

Yes — every extracted value in batch 49 is marked human_checked: true, but the records do NOT carry a date, name, or method for that verification. Specifically:

• samples[0] (the four 03.11.2025 application-test result rows: Violet 23, Violet 27, Black, Blue) — source docs/Application data Summary/APP DATA- BYK 9076 equivalent.xlsx, sheet BYK_9076_equivalent, row 51, extracted by parse_app_data.py on 2026-08-19 — human_checked: true, no verification date recorded.
• date ("20.10.25"), process_steps[0..2], and observations — all from docs/Project Expt Report/28112025 9076 Expt Table 2025.xls, sheet 9076_Experiments, batch block '49', extracted via the extract-expt-block.md task — human_checked: true, no verification date recorded.
• The process-step fields additionally carry confidence: "medium" notes (e.g. the Step 2 Temp/Time mapping and Step 3 cells holding analysis results instead of conditions), indicating the check flagged interpretation uncertainty rather than blind sign-off.

Gap, stated plainly: the provenance schema records only the boolean human_checked flag for batch 49 — there is no date_verified, verifier name, or linked verification note in this data drop. I also full-text searched the corpus for verification-related terms; no document in the drop (ELN, expt report, or app data) mentions a human review of batch 49's numbers. So: the pipeline claims human checking, but *who/when* is not in these records.