# Analysis result

## Run metadata

Model: GPT-5-based Codex (exact variant unknown)  
Provider: OpenAI  
Settings: Unknown  
Tools: Available but not used  
External data: Prohibited and not accessed; only the embedded dossier was used

## Machine-readable result

```json
{
  "schema_version": "2.1.0",
  "analyst_model": "GPT-5-based Codex",
  "case_id": "CASE-6U43",
  "cues": {
    "tonal_stability": {
      "score": 3,
      "evidence_ids": ["E015", "E016", "E017"],
      "reason": "Observed: E015 begins on D with the opening's D-major collection; E016-E017 then articulate D and its triad. Inference: home tonic is substantially established, though the onset lacks bass support."
    },
    "thematic_correspondence": {
      "score": 4,
      "evidence_ids": ["E001", "E004", "E005", "E015", "E025", "E026"],
      "reason": "Observed: E015 duplicates E001 note-for-note; E025-E026 also duplicate E004-E005 after recomposition. Inference: the opening theme returns unmistakably and with meaningful later extent."
    },
    "preparation_strength": {
      "score": 2,
      "evidence_ids": ["E013", "E014", "E015"],
      "reason": "Observed: E013's C-sharp trill over F-sharp resolves into B-centered E014, followed by a final-eighth silence. Inference: a clear cadential boundary prepares the return rhetorically, but not through D's dominant."
    },
    "proportional_location": {
      "score": 3,
      "evidence_ids": ["E014", "E015"],
      "reason": "Observed: the candidate occurs 63 of 147 quarter-notes into the second part, at E015 after E014's boundary. Inference: 42.9% is compatible with a recapitulatory division, but not independently decisive."
    },
    "rhetorical_emphasis": {
      "score": 3,
      "evidence_ids": ["E014", "E015"],
      "reason": "Observed: E014 thins into silence; E015 enters unaccompanied at D5 after the preceding B3, without dynamics or articulations. Inference: registral and textural reset substantially emphasizes arrival despite absent explicit accents."
    },
    "rotational_continuation": {
      "score": 3,
      "evidence_ids": ["E001", "E004", "E005", "E015", "E025", "E026"],
      "reason": "Observed: E015 restarts E001 exactly; after recomposed intervening measures, E025-E026 reproduce E004-E005 exactly. Inference: delayed literal resumption supports recapitulatory rotation more than continued development, though continuity is interrupted."
    }
  },
  "status_distribution": {
    "not_recapitulation": 0.03,
    "off_tonic_recapitulation": 0.07,
    "tonic_double_return": 0.9
  },
  "suspected_recognition": {
    "level": "style",
    "confidence": 0.9
  },
  "case_note": "The exact home-pitch opening return and later literal resumption strongly favor a tonic double return, despite the preceding B-centered cadence and initially monophonic tonic."
}
```

## Limitations

Missing evidence: the dossier provides selected windows rather than the complete second-part trajectory, so intervening formal processes and eventual tonal closure cannot be checked. Analytical uncertainty: the candidate follows a B-centered cadence and begins monophonically, leaving its tonic status briefly ambiguous; substantial recomposition before literal continuation also complicates the rotational judgment.