# Analysis result

The candidate return at W3, measure 0, beat 4 is very well supported as a tonic double return. The candidate is an anacrusis (A5 with grace B5, then G5–F#5, evidence E016) that reproduces the opening pickup (E001) exactly, and the following five measures (E017–E021) restate the opening measures (E002–E006) essentially note for note in the home key of D major, including the tonic-arpeggio bass D–F#–A. The pre-candidate window (E010–E015) is a sustained dominant preparation: an A pedal with A–C#–E and A7 sonorities, colored by B-flat as a flat ninth (E012–E015), dissolving into an unaccompanied scalar lead-in that delivers the pickup. The continuation (E022–E024) tracks the opening rotation further (matching E007–E009) before turning to cadential material that closes in D with staccato tonic-chord figures and a D pedal (E025–E027) — recapitulatory behavior, not sequence or continued development. The arrival itself is rhetorically modest — bass silent through the lead-in measure and no dynamics anywhere in the dossier — but that matches the opening's own thin pickup texture. The location, roughly 29% into the second part (120 of 408 quarter notes), is early but compatible with a compact development.

## Run metadata

- Analyst model: claude-fable-5 (Anthropic), running in the Claude Agent SDK harness.
- Sampling settings: not observable from within the session.
- Tools/external data: file, shell, and web tools exist in the harness but none were used; the analysis relied solely on the embedded dossier, per the access boundary.

## Machine-readable result

```json
{
  "schema_version": "2.1.0",
  "analyst_model": "claude-fable-5",
  "case_id": "CASE-Q2R9",
  "cues": {
    "tonal_stability": {"score": 4, "evidence_ids": ["E017", "E019", "E021", "E027"], "reason": "Observed: D-major key signature retained; bass D4-F#4-A4 root arpeggiation at theme onset and D-pedal cadence later. Inference: home tonic structurally restored and sustained, not touched in passing."},
    "thematic_correspondence": {"score": 4, "evidence_ids": ["E001", "E002", "E016", "E017", "E018"], "reason": "Observed: pickup A5 with B5 grace, G5, F#5, then E-D-D continuation identical in pitch, rhythm, register, and bass across several measures. Inference: literal opening-theme return, not motivic allusion."},
    "preparation_strength": {"score": 3, "evidence_ids": ["E010", "E011", "E012", "E014", "E015", "E016"], "reason": "Observed: prolonged A pedal with A-triad and A7 sonorities, B-flat as flat ninth, then unaccompanied scalar lead-in to the pickup. Inference: substantial dominant preparation, though no notated cadential articulation or fermata."},
    "proportional_location": {"score": 3, "evidence_ids": ["E016"], "reason": "Observed: candidate falls at 120 of 408 quarter notes into the second part (about 29%). Inference: early but compatible with a recapitulatory division after a compact development."},
    "rhetorical_emphasis": {"score": 2, "evidence_ids": ["E001", "E016"], "reason": "Observed: bass rests through the arrival measure; no dynamics or articulation marks anywhere despite complete coverage. Inference: understated arrival, but the thin texture mirrors the opening's own unaccompanied pickup."},
    "rotational_continuation": {"score": 4, "evidence_ids": ["E022", "E023", "E024", "E025", "E026", "E027"], "reason": "Observed: continuation matches further opening-rotation measures, then cadential figures and D pedal closing in the tonic. Inference: behaves as recapitulation moving toward closure, not sequential or developmental continuation."}
  },
  "status_distribution": {
    "not_recapitulation": 0.08,
    "off_tonic_recapitulation": 0.02,
    "tonic_double_return": 0.9
  },
  "suspected_recognition": {"level": "style", "confidence": 0.3},
  "case_note": "Exact opening-theme and tonic double return in D major after extended dominant preparation with flat-ninth coloring; continuation proceeds to tonic cadential closure. Early second-part placement and modest arrival rhetoric are the only reservations."
}
```

## Limitations

Missing dossier evidence: no dynamics, tempo, or fermata markings appear anywhere (coverage is declared complete, so these are likely absent from the source, but rhetorical emphasis is judged from texture alone); the windows are excerpts, so material between windows and any earlier tonic returns outside them are unobservable; exposition length and development extent are known only through the elapsed/total quarter-note figures. Analytical uncertainty: the early proportional placement (about 29% of the second part) and the understated arrival leave modest probability that this is a premature or false reprise rather than the structural recapitulation.
