# Analysis result

The candidate return in CASE-6U43 opens with an exact, at-pitch restatement of the opening incipit (compare E015 with E001: identical unaccompanied descent D5–D4–C#4–B3–A3–G3 in a bare texture), immediately after a marked cadence and caesura in the submediant (trill cadence in E013 resolving to a B-minor arpeggio and rests in E014). The return is therefore thematically and rhetorically strong, but its harmonic continuation is recomposed: the theme is answered imitatively in the bass (E016–E017) and then digresses toward the supertonic minor via C-natural and D-sharp inflections (E018–E020). Crucially, the continuation window realigns with the opening rotation at original pitch — E025 matches E004 and E026 matches E005 event-for-event — which supports reading the candidate as a genuine tonic double return with an elaborated, temporarily destabilized continuation rather than a developmental false return.

## Run metadata

- Analyst model: claude-fable-5 (Claude Fable 5, Anthropic), accessed via Claude Agent SDK harness.
- Sampling settings: not observable from within the session.
- Tools and external data: tool access exists in the harness but none was used; analysis relied solely on the embedded dossier. No internet, files, or external scores 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"],
      "reason": "Observed: candidate opens on tonic descent and D-major arpeggiation, but E018-E020 introduce C-natural, D-sharp, and an E-minor bass arpeggio. Inference: tonic asserted at onset yet quickly destabilized toward ii."
    },
    "thematic_correspondence": {
      "score": 3,
      "evidence_ids": ["E001", "E004", "E005", "E015", "E016", "E025", "E026"],
      "reason": "Observed: E015 duplicates E001 note-for-note at pitch; E016 restates the descent in the bass; E025/E026 match E004/E005 exactly. Inference: exact incipit return with recomposed middle, so substantial not complete correspondence."
    },
    "preparation_strength": {
      "score": 2,
      "evidence_ids": ["E013", "E014"],
      "reason": "Observed: trill cadence (E013) resolves to a B-minor arpeggio, then rests and textural liquidation (E014). Inference: clear rhetorical caesura, but the cadence is in the submediant, not a dominant preparation of the home tonic."
    },
    "proportional_location": {
      "score": 2,
      "evidence_ids": ["E015"],
      "reason": "Observed: onset at 63 of 147 quarter notes, about 43% through the second part. Inference: compatible with a recapitulatory division but somewhat early; first-part length is unavailable, limiting proportional judgment."
    },
    "rhetorical_emphasis": {
      "score": 3,
      "evidence_ids": ["E014", "E015"],
      "reason": "Observed: full-measure rest in the lower voice at E015 restores the opening's unaccompanied texture after E014's caesura. Inference: marked textural reset flags the arrival, though no dynamics or articulations reinforce it."
    },
    "rotational_continuation": {
      "score": 3,
      "evidence_ids": ["E018", "E019", "E021", "E025", "E026"],
      "reason": "Observed: brief imitative/sequential digression through E minor (E018-E019), then D-major arpeggio return (E021) and exact at-pitch matches to opening continuation (E025, E026). Inference: rotation resumes as recapitulation despite an interpolated digression."
    }
  },
  "status_distribution": {
    "not_recapitulation": 0.33,
    "off_tonic_recapitulation": 0.05,
    "tonic_double_return": 0.62
  },
  "suspected_recognition": {
    "level": "style",
    "confidence": 0.45
  },
  "case_note": "At-pitch, unaccompanied restatement of the opening incipit after a submediant cadence and caesura; continuation is imitatively recomposed and briefly tonicizes ii before realigning exactly with the opening rotation, favoring a tonic double return with elaborated continuation."
}
```

## Limitations

Missing dossier evidence: first-part length and full-movement proportions are not supplied, so proportional_location rests only on the second-part fraction; no dynamics, tempo, or articulation marks exist to corroborate rhetorical emphasis; the gap between windows W3 and W4 is not encoded, so rotational realignment is inferred across an unobserved span. Analytical uncertainty: the imitative treatment and supertonic digression after the return admit a false-return reading, reflected in the residual not_recapitulation probability. The idiom feels broadly familiar as a Baroque binary/contrapuntal style, but no specific identity was used or relied upon as evidence.
