# Analysis result

The candidate return in W3 is a near-exact restatement of the W1 opening (same pitches, durations, texture, register, and `p` dynamic) beginning on tonic D octaves, preceded by a multi-measure dominant pedal on A, and followed by a continuation that tracks the opening rotation into cadential material in D. All cues point to a tonic double return.

## Run metadata

- Analyst model: claude-fable-5 (Anthropic, Claude Agent SDK harness); sampling settings not observable.
- Tools and file/shell access exist in the harness but were not used; no internet, external files, or other annotators' outputs were accessed.
- Analysis used only the embedded dossier for CASE-DZWT.

## 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", "E019"],
      "reason": "Observed: candidate opens with D octaves, then F#, D, A over 2-sharp signature, arpeggiating D-F#-A-D. Inference: unambiguous root-position tonic prolongation of the home key at the arrival."
    },
    "thematic_correspondence": {
      "score": 4,
      "evidence_ids": ["E001", "E002", "E003", "E004", "E005", "E006", "E015", "E016", "E017", "E018", "E019", "E020"],
      "reason": "Observed: E015-E020 duplicate E001-E006 in pitch, rhythm, voicing, articulation, and dynamic. Inference: literal, extended return of the opening theme, not a variant or fragmentary reference."
    },
    "preparation_strength": {
      "score": 4,
      "evidence_ids": ["E011", "E012", "E013", "E014"],
      "reason": "Observed: sustained A pedal with tied A-C#-G sonority (dominant seventh) across several measures, melodic liquidation ending G#5-G5-E5. Inference: textbook multi-measure dominant preparation resolving directly into the tonic arrival."
    },
    "proportional_location": {
      "score": 3,
      "evidence_ids": ["E015"],
      "reason": "Observed: dossier metadata places the return at 159/390 quarter notes (~41%) into the second part. Inference: compatible with a recapitulatory division leaving room for a full restatement; not independently corroborated by section boundaries."
    },
    "rhetorical_emphasis": {
      "score": 3,
      "evidence_ids": ["E001", "E014", "E015"],
      "reason": "Observed: explicit p dynamic at the return matching the opening's p; exact restoration of two-voice octave texture and register after dominant standing with rests. Inference: emphasis through restoration and clearing of texture, not forte arrival."
    },
    "rotational_continuation": {
      "score": 4,
      "evidence_ids": ["E007", "E008", "E021", "E022", "E023", "E024", "E025", "E026"],
      "reason": "Observed: E021-E022 duplicate E007-E008; E023-E026 continue with tonic-centered cadential figures on D major chords. Inference: the passage behaves as a continuing recapitulatory rotation, not development or sequence."
    }
  },
  "status_distribution": {
    "not_recapitulation": 0.01,
    "off_tonic_recapitulation": 0.005,
    "tonic_double_return": 0.985
  },
  "suspected_recognition": {"level": "style", "confidence": 0.3},
  "case_note": "Literal tonic-key restatement of the opening theme after a multi-measure dominant pedal, with matching dynamic, texture, and register, and a continuation that follows the opening rotation into D-major cadential closure. All six cues converge on a tonic double return."
}
```

## Limitations

Missing dossier evidence: no tempo, no full-movement context beyond four windows, no section boundaries or repeat structure to corroborate the proportional claim, and no dynamics between the opening and candidate windows beyond the two `p` marks. Analytical uncertainty: proportional_location relies on candidate_return metadata rather than an evidence-ID measure; rhetorical emphasis at a piano dynamic is inherently interpretive. The idiom feels stylistically familiar (Classical-era triple-meter dance topic), which I report only via `suspected_recognition` and did not use as evidence.
