ALLWAYS065 — CRITIC A / V02
Verdict: QUALIFIED VISUAL PASS for the narrowed five-record/practice archive construction. V01's specificE descriptive/entry-identity blocker is repaired. Full five identified participants/self-description/voice proof remains UNFULFILLED; strong final reinterpretation and normal-speed/audio acceptance remain INCONCLUSIVE. No invented belief/testimony is credited as a result.

Inspection: All seven actual main V02 ordered sheets over100seconds; all six alternative V02 sheets; additional actualE opening40.5 onward at3fps through its exit/empty-space passage. Earlier source audit applies to unchanged records and the beginning of revisedE. No native normal-speed viewing or audio audition, no full source-consent research or speech verification.

ConcreteE repair:
40.5 starts with seated woman; outgoing male→female dissolve fromV01 is absent. She stands and visibly exits right by approximately44.0–44.2. The label now says LEAVING THE DESK. The question card52.5–56 says one person leaves the desk/the empty space remains. This matches what is visible without requiring an identifiable carried file or work product. A person leaving is an observed difference from the other in-frame hand activities. No end-of-work feeling, motive or biography is inferred.
Reprise68–75 now begins later in her action and preserves departure/empty view. It is clearly marked reprise; it is not a new event.

Important source-context qualification:
After departure, the extendedE passage runs into a native empty-office dissolve/reconfiguration around47.5–49 (furniture/desk arrangement ghosts/shifts). The entire44–52.5 interval therefore is NOT an uninterrupted observed aftermath of one fixed workspace. Native production editing continues. This does not recreateV01's person-continuity blocker: practice IDs are source records and no new person is falsely substituted inside the observed departure. But delivery must not call the whole interval continuous same-scene aftermath. “Empty space remains” is a broad visual relation; an exact fixed-location after-action claim would need an earlier endpoint before that native dissolve.
The held finalE image is explicitly editorial, not a newly recorded eight-second pause. Do not turn it into evidence of what the woman later did or the actual duration of an empty office.

Unequal final holds:
75–77A,77–79.5B,79.5–82.5C,82.5–87D,87–95E. Actual sheets show the changing source selections and long heldemptyworkspace. This improves the structural emphasis: E absence is no longer one of five equal4-second terminal cards. It deliberately receives more time. The other held images are still selected frames with people/actions present, not observed locations after practices. Labels continue to acknowledge that editorial holding does not mean the person physically froze. This is appropriately candid.

What the film achieves:
A painting cup, B grinding metal, C drawing/design work, D pouring/drinking and E leaving desk remain distinguishable records. Reprises compare hands/tools/surfaces and give E a genuine different action, rather than forcing every excerpt into productive manual work. Scope framing says names and personal accounts are unavailable and avoids invented religious/cultural/private meaning. These properties support the narrow visual pass.
The longer alternative preserves more native production context and includes additional views/people/machines. It remains a comparison of source passages, not five identified uninterrupted personal accounts. No blanket experiential qualitywinner is asserted without playback/sound.

What remains unfulfilled:
Five records are not five participant-approved people. C nativeview changes and other source participants cannot be declared one person's continuity; names, self-descriptions and participant-chosen significance remain unavailable. No verified own-language testimony or translation provenance is supplied. Sound spaces/source speech have not been auditioned. Equal absence of invented testimony is an integrity virtue, not a substitute for the full participant theorem.
The finalE absence emphasizes a difference already seen at the firstE passage; it gives it duration, but no clear new personal/contextual fact. A strong final passage changing the initial understanding of a practice remains INCONCLUSIVE. I do not claim the longer editorial hold creates that new understanding by itself.

Largest remaining limitation / falsifiable condition:
The work can honestly compare archival practices; it cannot recover the voices/approved identities missing from these records. For full participant acceptance, obtain equivalent contextual records or original participant-approved action/statement material, then test whether viewers can distinguish people through their own accounts rather than practice labels.
If an exact continuous desk-aftermath claim is wanted, end the nativeE excerpt before the empty-office dissolve and hold only with explicit editorial label. If finalreinterpretation is essential, test an initialE stopping before exit against a later continuation that reveals exit for the first time. Neither condition is mandatory for the presently declared narrow archive record scope, but neither can be silently assumed fulfilled.

Strengths to preserve:
Supported LEAVING THE DESK description.
Removal of male→female native entry transition from mainE.
No carried-file/motive/belief inference.
LongerE reprise and unequal final hold.
Visible source/staging/scope credits.
Clear distinction between native movement, reprise and editorial still.

Acceptance boundary: NARROW FIVE-RECORD VISUAL CONSTRUCTION QUALIFIED PASS;V01 E DESCRIPTION/ENTRY REPAIR VERIFIED. FULL FIVE-PARTICIPANT/TESTIMONY PROOF UNFULFILLED;FINAL STRONG REINTERPRETATION INCONCLUSIVE. EXTENDED E AFTERMATH CONTAINS NATIVE SETTING DISSOLVE. NATIVE-SPEED/SOUND/WHOLE-FILM AV ACCEPTANCE INCONCLUSIVE.