For 1984: Does Withdrawn mean the sites was nominated and then withdrawn by the state party or that the TWHS was withdrawn from the T-list?
This particular ambiguity only applies by definition to "Former Tentative Sites". It could be said that its meaning is "inferrable" - i.e it must mean "withdrawn from T List" or else the site would not be described as "has been part of the T List" - but I agree it isn't really very satisfactory to have to go through such mental logical hoops in order to determine what the meaning is!
However I note that a similar (but rather "worse"!) ambiguity applies to the use of the word "Submitted" which can occur on all 3 categories of "current status" - "WHS", "Tentative List" and "Former Tentative Sites". Does that mean "Submitted to the Tentative List" or "Submitted for Nomination". It appears that it means "Submitted to the T List". Where a site has also been nominated for inscription this causes a logical inconsistency in that the result of the nomination can appear BEFORE the submission to the T List where these both occur in the same year - E.g "The Twin Monastery of Wearmouth Jarrow" was (reading up from the bottom towards the present) "2012 - Requested ... not to be examined" followed by "Submitted"!!!! I did wonder if there should be a status of "Nominated" but concluded that the various results of nomination ("Deferred", Referred", "Requested not to be examined" etc) cover the point without introducing an extra "status" - by definition any of them MUST mean that the site had been "Nominated". I presume that is isn't possible for a site to be nominated WITHOUT one or other of these results following)
I think that it would be better to adopt the use of "Added" and "Removed" for the T List start and finish rather than "Submitted" and "Withdrawn". The columns on the country pages titled "Tentative List" and "Former Tentative Sites" only need the single words since the column meaning is clear in the context, however the individual "Site History" sections might be better stating "Added to T List" and "Removed from T List" to avoid any possible confusion.
I wonder if the use of the phrase "Added to T List" beginning with the letter "A", might be enough to ensure that, as in the case of Wearmouth, above, this status always appears as the very first (i.e as the bottom entry of the history list - which by definition it must be)? If not then some other method of sequencing the Site history beyond merely the year must be found!
Looking at the Site History for inscribed sites, I note that the date of placement on the T List seems to be being "lost" when they are transferred from "T List" to "inscribed"- so "Forth Bridge" only has "Inscribed" in its history - but it would have had a date for "Added to T List" before it was inscribed - was it a positive decision to drop this? It seems to be a matter of "interest" which we ought to keep wherever possible/known in order to provide the history of how long a site was on the T List before being nominated/gaining inscription?