That uncertainty is precisely the point. The structure, if it survives at all, has been formally classified as not located, meaning it exists in the historical record without existing, in any confirmed sense, on the ground.

Two early twentieth-century writers noted it independently, which at least establishes that something was once visible. Cochrane, writing in 1901, placed the remains of a bishop's residence close to the local castle. Fahey, writing a few years later in 1904, was considerably less impressed, describing it as a ruin with no particular features, and noting, with a certain dry precision, that it was merely referred to by some writers as the bishop's house. The phrasing implies scepticism, not about the ruin itself, but about the tradition attached to it. Whether the structure genuinely served as an ecclesiastical residence, or whether that association accumulated over time through local memory and casual repetition, is impossible now to say. No subsequent investigation appears to have pinned down its exact location relative to the castle, and the two sources, brief as they are, remain the sum of what is known.