# Analysis result

The candidate return at window W3 is a near-literal restatement of the opening theme (W1) on the home tonic D, in root position, in the home key signature, prepared by a multi-measure dominant pedal with chromatic ascent and a forte scalar retransition. The continuation (W4) keeps tracking the opening material and then prolongs the tonic before a conventional subdominant lean. The evidence points strongly to a tonic double return.

## Run metadata

- Analyst model: claude-fable-5 (Anthropic), running in a Claude agent harness.
- Sampling settings: unknown (not observable from within the session).
- Tools and external data: available in the environment but not used; analysis relied solely on the embedded dossier.
- Internet access: not used.

## Machine-readable result

```json
{
  "schema_version": "2.1.0",
  "analyst_model": "claude-fable-5",
  "case_id": "CASE-D09B",
  "cues": {
    "tonal_stability": {
      "score": 4,
      "evidence_ids": ["E016", "E017", "E019", "E024"],
      "reason": "Observed: candidate opens on D3/D4 root-position tonic with D-A-D-F# bass motion, home key signature, and later tonic arpeggio expansion to D6. Inference: structurally stable home-tonic arrival."
    },
    "thematic_correspondence": {
      "score": 4,
      "evidence_ids": ["E002", "E003", "E004", "E016", "E017", "E018", "E021"],
      "reason": "Observed: W3 measures 0-5 reproduce W1 measures 0-5 nearly note-for-note, including trills and register; only a staccato differs (E004 vs E018). Inference: extended literal opening-theme return."
    },
    "preparation_strength": {
      "score": 3,
      "evidence_ids": ["E010", "E011", "E012", "E013", "E014", "E015"],
      "reason": "Observed: four measures of sustained A5 over A-bass figuration with chromatic inner ascent, then forte scalar descent onto an A2 upbeat mirroring the opening anacrusis. Inference: substantial dominant-pedal retransition, though no explicit cadence or caesura."
    },
    "proportional_location": {
      "score": 3,
      "evidence_ids": ["E016"],
      "reason": "Observed: onset at 241/2 of 613/2 quarter notes, about 39% through the second part, leaving a long post-return span. Inference: compatible with a recapitulatory division; first-part length is unavailable for full confirmation."
    },
    "rhetorical_emphasis": {
      "score": 3,
      "evidence_ids": ["E014", "E015", "E016", "E001"],
      "reason": "Observed: forte markings at the retransition and its bass upbeat, registral descent from A5 to the opening's low octave texture. Inference: clear arrival rhetoric matching the opening's forte anacrusis, though no dynamic at the downbeat itself."
    },
    "rotational_continuation": {
      "score": 3,
      "evidence_ids": ["E022", "E023", "E008", "E009", "E024", "E026", "E027"],
      "reason": "Observed: W4 measures 0-1 continue matching W1 measures 6-7, then tonic arpeggio expansion, then C-natural inflection toward G. Inference: behaves as recapitulation with a conventional subdominant lean, not developmental sequence."
    }
  },
  "status_distribution": {
    "not_recapitulation": 0.05,
    "off_tonic_recapitulation": 0.01,
    "tonic_double_return": 0.94
  },
  "suspected_recognition": {"level": "style", "confidence": 0.2},
  "case_note": "Near-literal, extended tonic return of the opening theme after a dominant-pedal retransition with forte rhetoric; continuation tracks the opening rotation before tonic expansion and a subdominant inflection. Strong tonic double return; small residual chance of a false reprise given no explicit cadential articulation."
}
```

## Limitations

Missing dossier evidence: first-part length, tempo, and any material between windows are not supplied, so the proportional cue rests only on second-part elapsed time; no dynamics appear at the candidate downbeat itself; the gap between W2 and W3 and between W3 and W4 is assumed contiguous but not stated. Analytical uncertainty: the F-natural mixture in the retransition and the post-return move toward G admit a false-reprise reading, though the length of literal correspondence makes this unlikely. Style familiarity reported under suspected_recognition was not used as evidence.
