I think that the principle that, ''Here it was found, so it is,'' applies only to when there is a change in domain. I mean to say that it is a principle that tells us about the time some change occurred, but only when there was change in domain. The reason I say this is because there is apparently a contradiction in the Rambam. On one hand, he holds a sota is a doubt. And on the other hand, he holds a bride in her father's house is considered to be in her father's domain [even though she has also become an arusa espoused or engaged]. There she is considered to be definite. That is she is considered to be in her fathers domain definitely not just by a doubt. To make it clear what I am referring to here let me bring the gemara in ketuboth page 75 and 76. The case is a little complicated. For if a engaged woman was living with her father until marriage. Then she was married, and the husband found her to have blemish. The husband claims that she had a blemish before she was espoused. In that case, the Rambam holds that the wedding was a mistake and the father must return the money of the marriage. That is the Rambam holds this a case of a certainty. All the husband needs to do is to prove that she had the blemish while she was still living with her father and then we say that she had the blemish even before he was espoused. [If she received the blemish after she was espoused even though she was still in her father’s home, then that is considered to be in the husband domain. Even so all the husband needs to do is show by witness that saw her in the bathhouse that she has blemish before the actual wedding, and then we say she had it before the espousal. However, the Rambam says that a sota does not eat truma because she is in doubt, and also that her husband cannot live with her because she is in doubt. So to the Rambam, a sota is a doubt. Then why do we say that we learn from sota and from two hazakot that the mikve that was found lacking the right volume is definitely not OK. The reason is because we learn from sota that there is a doubt and the two hazakot makes it definite.] So, we learn that a hazaka of the body pushes the time a change happened to be as late as possible even against a hazaka that something is found now to have a problem. So why then in the case of the bride do we say the change happened as late as possible? After all she might have received the blemish after the espousal? It must be that in the opinion of the Rambam, the principle, ''Here it was found, so here it,'' was applies only to a case when there was a change in the domain and when there was a change in the domain this principle overrides all other hazakot even hekat hagof. --------------------I think that the principle that כאן נמצא כאן היה applies only to when there is a change in domain. I mean to say that it is a principle that tells us about the time some change occurred, but only when there was change in domain. The reason I say this is because there is apparently a contradiction in the רמב’’ם. On one hand he holds a sota is a doubt. And on the other hand he hold a bride in her fathers house is considered to be in her fathers domain even though she has also become an ארוסה espoused or engaged. and there she is considered to be definite. That is, she is considered to be in her fathers domain definitely, not just by a doubt. To make it clear what I am referring to here let me bring the גמרא in כתובות page ע''ה and ע''ו. The case is a little complicated. For if a engaged woman was living with her father until marriage. Then she wasנשאת , and the husband found her to have blemish. The husband claims that she had a blemish before she was espoused. In that case, the רמב’’ם holds that the נישואין was a mistake and the father must return the money of theקידושין . That is the רמב’’ם holds this a case of a certainty. All the husband needs to do is to prove that she had the blemish while she was still living with her father, and then we say that she had the blemish even before he was espoused. [If she received the blemish after she was espoused, even though she was still in her father’s home, then that is considered to be in the husband domain. Even so all the husband needs to do is show by witness that saw her in the bathhouse that she has blemish before the actual wedding, and then we say she had it before the espousal. However, the רמב’’ם says that a סוטה does not eat תרומה because she is in doubt ספק זונה , and also that her husband cannot live with her because she is in doubt ספק זונה . So, to the רמב’’ם, a סוטה is a doubt. Then why do we say that we learn from סוטה and from two חזקות that the מקוה that was found lacking the right volume is definitely not OK. The reason is because we learn from סוטה that there is a doubt and the two חזקות makes it definite.] So, we learn that a חזקת הגוף pushes the time a change happened to be as late as possible even against a חזקת השתא that something is found now to have a problem. So why then in the case of the bride do we say the change happened as late as possible? After all she might have received the blemish after the espousal? It must be that in the opinion of the רמב’’ם the principle כאן נמצא וכאן היה applies only to a case when there was a change in the domain and when there was a change in the domain this principle overrides all other חזקות even חזקת הגוף. To see clearly why I reached this idea see Reb Shmuel Rozovski, Zichron Shmuel; Mishnat Reb Aaron volume Ketuboth chapter 11, and Rav Shach in Nida page 2b and 3a To see clearly why I reached this idea see ר שמואל רוזובסקי, בזכרון שמואל; משנת ר' אהרן volume כתובות chapter י''א, and רב שך in נידה דפים ב' ע''ב and ג' ע''א