# Analysis result

The candidate return at window W3 is an exact, tonic-key restatement of the opening theme, preceded by a sustained dominant preparation and followed by continuation that behaves as recapitulation. The evidence strongly supports a tonic double return.

## Run metadata

- Analyst model: claude-fable-5 (Claude Fable 5, Anthropic), per session environment information.
- Tools and external data: none used; analysis based solely on the embedded dossier text. No internet access was used.
- Sampling settings: unknown (not observable from within the session).

## Machine-readable result

```json
{
  "schema_version": "2.1.0",
  "analyst_model": "claude-fable-5",
  "case_id": "CASE-DZWT",
  "cues": {
    "tonal_stability": {
      "score": 4,
      "evidence_ids": ["E015", "E016", "E017", "E018", "E025", "E026"],
      "reason": "Observed: candidate opens on D octaves with D-major signature, tonic scale-degree bass (D, F#, A), and continuation ends on repeated D/F#/A sonorities. Inference: home tonic D is structurally stable at and after the return."
    },
    "thematic_correspondence": {
      "score": 4,
      "evidence_ids": ["E001", "E002", "E003", "E004", "E005", "E006", "E015", "E016", "E017", "E018", "E019", "E020"],
      "reason": "Observed: W3 measures 0-5 duplicate W1 measures 0-5 in pitch, rhythm, voicing, and register, including the p marking. Inference: complete, literal opening-theme return, not a fragmentary or transposed allusion."
    },
    "preparation_strength": {
      "score": 4,
      "evidence_ids": ["E009", "E010", "E011", "E012", "E013", "E014"],
      "reason": "Observed: repeated A2/A3 bass pedal, then a sustained A-C#-G sonority held across three measures directly before the return. Inference: prolonged dominant-seventh preparation of D, a strong retransitional dominant."
    },
    "proportional_location": {
      "score": 3,
      "evidence_ids": ["E015"],
      "reason": "Observed: return onset at 159 of 390 quarter notes into the second part (about 41%). Inference: compatible with a recapitulatory division after a development-length span, though exact sectional totals are not given."
    },
    "rhetorical_emphasis": {
      "score": 3,
      "evidence_ids": ["E015", "E014"],
      "reason": "Observed: explicit p dynamic matching the opening, restored two-voice octave texture and original register after dominant-chord figuration. Inference: understated but clearly articulated arrival; no forte or textural climax marks the moment."
    },
    "rotational_continuation": {
      "score": 4,
      "evidence_ids": ["E007", "E008", "E021", "E022", "E023", "E024", "E025", "E026"],
      "reason": "Observed: W4 measures 0-1 duplicate W1 measures 6-7, then material stays in D and closes with tonic-chord cadential figures. Inference: continuation proceeds rotationally toward closure, not as further development or sequence."
    }
  },
  "status_distribution": {
    "not_recapitulation": 0.03,
    "off_tonic_recapitulation": 0.01,
    "tonic_double_return": 0.96
  },
  "suspected_recognition": {"level": "style", "confidence": 0.4},
  "case_note": "Exact tonic-pitch restatement of the opening theme after a sustained dominant pedal and dominant-seventh retransition, at a plausible recapitulatory location, with rotational continuation into tonic cadential closure. All cues converge on a tonic double return."
}
```

## Limitations

Missing dossier evidence: no material between windows, so the full development span, any earlier false returns, and overall sectional totals beyond the second-part figure are unobservable; no tempo or pedaling data. Analytical uncertainty: proportional judgment rests on a single elapsed-time ratio; the quiet dynamic makes rhetorical emphasis interpretive; the continuation window is short, so later tonal digression cannot be ruled out. The material reads as familiar Classical-idiom writing (reported only via `suspected_recognition`); that familiarity was not used as evidence.
