# Analysis result

The candidate at W3 opens with a note-for-note restatement of the opening measure on the home tonic D (E015 matches E001 exactly, including the unaccompanied texture), arriving directly after a trilled cadence in the relative-minor region (E013–E014). The continuation is recomposed — the bass echoes the head motive (E016), and the music digresses briefly toward E minor (E018–E019) — but it regains D through dominant harmony (E020–E021) and then rejoins the opening theme's third and fourth measures exactly at original pitch (E025 = E004, E026 = E005). Located about 43% through the second part, this reads most plausibly as a tonic double return in a rounded-binary design, with an expanded and freely recomposed continuation, rather than a false or off-tonic return.

## Run metadata

- Analyst model: claude-fable-5 (Anthropic), running in a Claude agent harness.
- Sampling settings (temperature, top-p): unknown to the model.
- Tools and external data: tool access exists in the harness but none was used; the analysis relies solely on the embedded dossier. No internet, files, or prior annotations were consulted.

## Machine-readable result

```json
{
  "schema_version": "2.1.0",
  "analyst_model": "claude-fable-5",
  "case_id": "CASE-6U43",
  "cues": {
    "tonal_stability": {
      "score": 2,
      "evidence_ids": ["E015", "E016", "E017", "E018", "E019", "E020", "E021"],
      "reason": "Observed: return on D with tonic arpeggiation (E016-E017), but C-natural/D-sharp shift to E minor by E018-E019, D regained via dominant (E020-E021). Inference: tonic asserted at arrival yet quickly destabilized before recovery."
    },
    "thematic_correspondence": {
      "score": 3,
      "evidence_ids": ["E001", "E015", "E004", "E005", "E025", "E026"],
      "reason": "Observed: E015 is note-for-note identical to opening E001; E025-E026 exactly match theme measures E004-E005 at pitch. Inference: genuine thematic return with a recomposed, expanded middle rather than literal continuation."
    },
    "preparation_strength": {
      "score": 2,
      "evidence_ids": ["E013", "E014"],
      "reason": "Observed: trilled cadence (E013) resolving in the relative-minor region with textural liquidation and rests (E014). Inference: strong rhetorical caesura before the return, but no home-key dominant preparation, so harmonic preparation is only moderate."
    },
    "proportional_location": {
      "score": 3,
      "evidence_ids": ["E015"],
      "reason": "Observed: candidate onset at 63 of 147 quarter notes (~43%) into the second part. Inference: compatible with a rounded-binary recapitulatory division, leaving the majority of the second part for tonic restatement."
    },
    "rhetorical_emphasis": {
      "score": 2,
      "evidence_ids": ["E014", "E015", "E001"],
      "reason": "Observed: rests and thinning before the return (E014); candidate restores the opening's solo, unaccompanied texture and register (E015 vs E001). No dynamics anywhere. Inference: emphasis is textural and registral only, hence moderate."
    },
    "rotational_continuation": {
      "score": 3,
      "evidence_ids": ["E018", "E019", "E020", "E021", "E025", "E026"],
      "reason": "Observed: brief E-minor digression (E018-E019), dominant return to D (E020-E021), then exact pitch-level rejoin of theme continuation (E025-E026). Inference: behaves as an expanded recapitulation, not ongoing sequential development."
    }
  },
  "status_distribution": {
    "not_recapitulation": 0.2,
    "off_tonic_recapitulation": 0.05,
    "tonic_double_return": 0.75
  },
  "suspected_recognition": {"level": "style", "confidence": 0.3},
  "case_note": "Exact tonic head return after a relative-minor trill cadence, recomposed and briefly modulating continuation, then exact realignment with the theme at original pitch; best read as a tonic double return in rounded-binary practice, with residual chance of a false return."
}
```

## Limitations

Missing dossier evidence: no dynamics, articulations, or tempo directions appear anywhere, so rhetorical emphasis rests on texture and rests alone; no material between windows W1/W2 and after W4 is supplied, so the full second-part trajectory and any later, stronger return cannot be checked. Analytical uncertainty: the one-measure exact head plus quick E-minor digression admits a false-return reading; I weighed the exact pitch-level rejoin at E025–E026 against it. A mild style-level familiarity was felt and is reported only via `suspected_recognition`; it was not used as evidence.
