I believe the 192 is closer to being correct. That newspaper uses the precincts that have been recounted but leaves the old number in for precincts that have not been officially recounted.
The state number is complete except for one precincts and that precinct is not in the numbers at all. It's obviously a Franken precinct so the race will tighten up when it is official.
That is the precinct with the missing ballots.
I’ve thought about it since the last post and I believe the SOS is the official site. He announced the recount is over and had Coleman +687. Now even if he’s in error and that one batch of “missing ballots” is eventually counted, we know that that batch would only give Franken a net gain of 37, give or take a couple. That still would give Coleman a lead of about 650 going into the challenged ballots phase, and the +650 would seem statistically almost impossible to be overcome.
The source of the discrepency between the SOS site and the Star Tribune site is that while the SOS does not include any tallies from that Dinkytown precinct, the Star Tribine includes the original tally. Therefore, the real recount margin is undoubtedly much closer to Coleman +192, pending adjustments that might be made as a result of the Dinkytown precinct recount.
BTW, the "lost ballots" have not been found despite a very thorough search of the premises where they were believed to have been "lost", and the Dem bureaucrat in charge there seems to have given up the pursuit. Since the "lost ballots" were included in the original tally, It would seem as if they are included in the Star Tribune tally. So if they are not "found" for the recount, it seems as if Franken will lose a net of 37 votes from the recount tally, which would put Coleman at about +229 when the recount tally is complete.
All this confusion seemed to have arisen because the SOS proclaimed the recount at the precincts over, while the SOS site did not include the tally from the one problem precinct.