That was my first thought, but on second reading I think my assertion is right.
First, read this paragraph:
On May 18, while checking grades for errors, a teacher for a student whose name was redacted noticed that a grade had been changed from a 70 to a 76. The teacher "changed the grade back to a 70 and that was the grade on the transcript that was released," he wrote.
It clearly states the teacher discovered the change on 5/18.
Now read these:
"This week," Kyle wrote on Aug. 10, "when student information ran the report and found that a second counselor has gone in and changed grades for the same student just reinforces that a plan must be developed ... to limit access to historical data to only the minimum number of people," Kyle wrote
Responding to questions from Kyle on June 20, the teacher said he believed that he entered the 70 on May 4, then discovered on May 17 that it had been changed to a 76. He said he changed it back to a 70 that day
Upon review, I read that to say the the reports indicated the dates of entry and change.
It doesn't really matter. His grades were changed immediately prior to him registering at Auburn and I assume he registered using the falsified transcript. The teacher fixed it but the change would have never been exposed had the NCAA not been looking around.
If it had been found a year or two down the road, it would have been written off as an unintentional error.
When you get right down to it, that's a pretty solid plan. Too bad for Auburn that Mississippi State isn't as skilled.
