# Analysis result

## Run metadata

- Analyst model: GPT-5 (Codex)
- Provider: OpenAI
- Settings: unknown
- Tools: available but not used
- External data: unavailable and not used

## Machine-readable result

```json
{
  "schema_version": "2.1.0",
  "analyst_model": "GPT-5 (Codex)",
  "case_id": "CASE-6U43",
  "cues": {
    "tonal_stability": {
      "score": 3,
      "evidence_ids": ["E015", "E017", "E021"],
      "reason": "Observed: E015 begins on exposed D, while E017 and E021 arpeggiate D–F-sharp–A. Inference: home-tonic stability emerges strongly, though the candidate onset itself lacks harmonic support."
    },
    "thematic_correspondence": {
      "score": 4,
      "evidence_ids": ["E001", "E004", "E005", "E015", "E025", "E026"],
      "reason": "Observed: E015 duplicates E001’s rhythm, register, and descending line; E025–E026 duplicate E004–E005. Inference: the opening theme returns unmistakably, with substantial intervening recomposition."
    },
    "preparation_strength": {
      "score": 2,
      "evidence_ids": ["E013", "E014", "E015"],
      "reason": "Observed: E013–E014 emphasize B, F-sharp, and D, ending on B before silence; no A-dominant sonority appears. Inference: rhetorical separation creates expectancy, but tonal preparation for D is weak."
    },
    "proportional_location": {
      "score": 3,
      "evidence_ids": ["E015"],
      "reason": "Observed: E015 marks the candidate after 63 of 147 quarter-notes, about 43% through the second part. Inference: the remaining span readily accommodates recapitulation, although location alone is non-diagnostic."
    },
    "rhetorical_emphasis": {
      "score": 2,
      "evidence_ids": ["E014", "E015"],
      "reason": "Observed: E014 withdraws into rests, followed by E015’s exposed high D and octave plunge; no dynamics or articulations mark the arrival. Inference: textural contrast emphasizes the return moderately."
    },
    "rotational_continuation": {
      "score": 3,
      "evidence_ids": ["E016", "E017", "E018", "E019", "E020", "E021", "E022", "E023", "E024", "E025", "E026"],
      "reason": "Observed: E016–E024 expand and sequence the material, then E025–E026 match E004–E005 exactly. Inference: delayed rotational rejoining supports recomposed recapitulation, although developmental continuation remains plausible."
    }
  },
  "status_distribution": {
    "not_recapitulation": 0.17,
    "off_tonic_recapitulation": 0.01,
    "tonic_double_return": 0.82
  },
  "suspected_recognition": {
    "level": "style",
    "confidence": 0.65
  },
  "case_note": "The exact thematic return on D, later rotational rejoining, and compatible location favor tonic double return; weak dominant preparation and developmental expansion preserve false-return uncertainty."
}
```

## Limitations

Missing evidence: the dossier supplies selected windows rather than the continuous complete form, and no audio or performance realization, limiting large-scale tonal and proportional assessment. Analytical uncertainty: the exposed monophonic onset makes its harmony initially ambiguous, while the subsequent sequential recomposition could represent either recapitulatory continuation or a developmental false return.