# Analysis result

The candidate at W3 measure 0 restates the opening theme nearly verbatim from its second measure onward, but the return's onset is harmonized by a chromatic B–D♯–F♯ sonority rather than the D-major tonic, which is regained only two measures in. The evidence supports a recapitulatory return whose tonic arrival is displaced from the thematic onset.

## Run metadata

- Analyst model: claude-fable-5 (per session environment); provider: Anthropic.
- Decoding settings (temperature, top-p, max tokens): unknown / not observable.
- Tools and external data: none used; analysis restricted to the embedded dossier. No internet access, no external files, no other annotators' labels consulted.

## Machine-readable result

```json
{
  "schema_version": "2.1.0",
  "analyst_model": "claude-fable-5",
  "case_id": "CASE-8JQJ",
  "cues": {
    "tonal_stability": {
      "score": 1,
      "evidence_ids": ["E015", "E016", "E017", "E018"],
      "reason": "Observed: candidate onset harmonized B2/D#3/F#3 with D# chromatic to D major; D-rooted tonic harmony appears only at E017 and E018. Inference: tonic is absent at the return itself, restored two measures later."
    },
    "thematic_correspondence": {
      "score": 3,
      "evidence_ids": ["E001", "E002", "E003", "E004", "E015", "E016", "E017", "E018"],
      "reason": "Observed: E016-E018 match E002-E004 nearly note-for-note; E015 repeats E001's rhythm transposed a step lower; E019 diverges from E005. Inference: substantial opening-theme return with altered head and altered fifth measure."
    },
    "preparation_strength": {
      "score": 2,
      "evidence_ids": ["E012", "E013", "E014", "E015"],
      "reason": "Observed: forte (DR0001) then piano thinning (DR0002) before the return; approach prolongs the B/D# sonority (E012 into E015), no dominant-of-D cadence. Inference: rhetorical preparation present, cadential dominant preparation absent."
    },
    "proportional_location": {
      "score": 3,
      "evidence_ids": ["E015"],
      "reason": "Observed: candidate onset at 72 of 141 quarter notes of the second part (about 51%). Inference: compatible with a recapitulatory division leaving roughly half the second part for restated material."
    },
    "rhetorical_emphasis": {
      "score": 3,
      "evidence_ids": ["E014", "E015"],
      "reason": "Observed: forte marked at the candidate (DR0003) directly after piano (DR0002), with a full three-note bass chord and the theme in its original register. Inference: clear dynamic and textural arrival marking."
    },
    "rotational_continuation": {
      "score": 3,
      "evidence_ids": ["E021", "E022", "E023", "E024", "E025", "E026"],
      "reason": "Observed: continuation descends to D-major cadential motion (E022) then oscillates dominant-pedal figuration (E023, E025) with tonic-area measures (E024, E026). Inference: tonally anchored post-return behavior, not modulating sequence or continued development."
    }
  },
  "status_distribution": {
    "not_recapitulation": 0.10,
    "off_tonic_recapitulation": 0.62,
    "tonic_double_return": 0.28
  },
  "suspected_recognition": {"level": "style", "confidence": 0.3},
  "case_note": "Clear thematic return at the candidate, but its onset sits on a chromatic B-major sonority; original-pitch material and tonic harmony arrive at the second and third measures. Best read as a recapitulatory return with displaced (delayed) tonic rather than a coincident double return."
}
```

## Limitations

Missing dossier evidence: no tempo, no measures between W2 and W3 (gap size unstated), no exposition-closing material for comparison, and no first-part length, so proportional judgment rests only on second-part figures. Dynamics are sparse (three marks total), limiting rhetorical assessment. Analytical uncertainty: the split between off-tonic recapitulation and tonic double return depends on whether the structural return is located at the candidate onset (B-major harmony) or two measures later where tonic and original pitch coincide; the dossier fixes the candidate at the earlier point, which drives my weighting. Stylistic familiarity reported under suspected_recognition was not used as evidence.
