EE 3.44 provides the following example:
Gale Williams Bamman, CG, "William Ball of Giles County, Tennessee: Project No. 2," p. 5; prepared for R. C. Ball, [ADDRESS FOR PRIVATE USE,] Houston, Texas, 17 March 1990; photocopy held by [NAME, ADDRESS].
I infer from the use of the word "photocopy" that someone other than R. C. Ball has a copy of the original report. If the reference note is being created by the person who requested the report and the original report is still in that requestor's possession, is there a necessity or is it still a good idea to explicitly say that (by adding at the end, "original research report held by R. C. Ball", or revising the reference note to say "prepared for and held by R. C. Ball")? In other words, if "photocopy held by [NAME, ADDRESS]" were not in the reference note above, would you agree that the logical inference is that the original report is still in the hands of R. C. Ball and that the original report is the source for the citation?