061 V02 — CRITIC B REPAIR REVIEW
Verdict: PASS for the visual contact/response study and for the revised earlier/later comparison. Recovery or permanence remains untested, as the actual screen now explicitly states. No full audiovisual pass.

Method: Preserved my V01 review. Inspected actual V02 sheets2–3 covering26–49seconds and decoded an actual main MP4 frame at38.00seconds at native960x768. This assesses the changed37–45second comparison in the context of the prior4fps whole-V01 inspection and source audit. I have not densely re-decoded all unchanged V02 action or independently viewed its control again. Parent described the proposed repair before this assessment; no scripts,timeline,state ledger or other critic report read. No audio or native playback.

The substantive repair works. The actual plate now has three earlier/later rows, not three supposedly stable end products. At37–45seconds the wet row shows a pale contact-edge beside the dark drop on the left and a substantial dark patch on the right. The distracting advertising headline is absent from the chosen later frame. The cutting row shows the tall attached spiral on the left, then the cleared central area and smaller cut pieces on the right after the long ribbon's departure. This directly addresses my earlier concern that a new active curl was being called a severed endpoint. 'WETTING / AD' preserves the advertising-source distinction visibly, rather than laundering the demonstration into neutral experimental evidence.

The carton row links back to the opening operator,clock/task and shows changed positions of tabs/walls between selected source27.5 and36.0seconds. It is the least decisive pair: hands obscure parts of the near corner and carton orientation changes, so a viewer must distinguish manipulation/reorientation from the actual fold. It does not show an untouched flat blank becoming a box. The row label says 'FOLDING', which is appropriately narrower. The actual motion earlier in the main remains better evidence of local bending than these two small states alone.

The original wetting and cutting source audit supports these visual state choices: the Bounty sequence visibly grows a dark patch after contact; the cutting sequence visibly sheds a long spiral before smaller pieces/new shavings appear. Source-time labels are visible and agree at coarse audit resolution with the cited regions. I have not independently certified their exact frame timestamps. The full ad provenance and lack of a common physical test remain as qualified in my V01 report.

The question 'Which changes would remain after contact stops?' now asks the unresolved question rather than pretending the frames answer it. The immediately adjacent line 'RECOVERY NOT TESTED', together with 'SELECTED STATES / SEPARATE SOURCES', makes that limit explicit. Nothing on this actual plate establishes permanence,elastic recovery or comparative absorbency rates. Its function is to compare visible changes and open a question. That is honest and useful.

Largest remaining defect in V02: the 'Earlier view' and 'Later view' headings are too far left. At native resolution the first starts over the row-label gutter and the second starts over the left image column, while the pictures occupy columns starting around190 and575pixels. This is a genuine mapping error, not an artistic disagreement: a viewer can associate 'Later view' with the first picture. Move the headings directly over their image columns. No picture substitution is needed for this repair.

The eight-second37–45hold is now better motivated than V01 because there are six images,three source labels per side and a question/qualification to read. I would not demand the previously suggested4–5second duration without native playback: the revised information density has changed. Once headings are aligned, use actual playback to check that viewers can compare all three rows and read the qualification comfortably. The remaining weak carton comparison can be tested by asking what physical change each pair shows; if viewers report only a rotated box, choose states with more visible wall/tab angle difference or rely explicitly on the earlier moving action.

Disposition: substantive visual repair accepted, with V02 heading alignment requiring correction. Core cause/response pass retained. The plate is a clearer comparison of recorded states and avoids unsupported end-state claims. Real-time rhythm,audio and recovery conclusions remain outside this inspection.