Independent critic B — 065 / FIVE RECORDS — V01 Verdict: qualified VISUAL PASS for distinguishing five archive practices without assigning personal testimony or belief. The full participant-centered prompt is NOT satisfied: these records do not establish five consenting identifiable adults, self-descriptions, statements, translation verification or individual sound spaces. Full audiovisual/native-speed acceptance remains INCONCLUSIVE. The qualification is substantive: this is a parallel study of recorded actions and their editorial limits, not five documented personal accounts. Method I inspected all seven ordered one-second main-film sheets before reading REPRESENTATION.json, TIMELINE_SOUND.json or prompt.txt. After that first pass I read those records, inspected all six one-second sheets of the 88-second alternative, and extracted the actual main's B, D and E opening passages at four frames/second. I inspected original B source frames at 2 and 5.5 seconds and E source frames at 22, 23.5, 24.5 and 29 seconds to test worker continuity and the office dissolve. I have not densely inspected every original film or every main-film frame. No audio audition, native real-time playback or source-rights validation occurred. No builder script or other critic report was read. What the five records actually preserve A, 4–12 seconds: a woman repeatedly brings a fine tool/brush toward the cup and reaches back toward her materials. The cup on its turning support, her posture and repeated fine contact distinguish this practice from generic hand movement. Her identity and the meaning of her work to her remain unknown. The short excerpt does not show a completed cup, but it does preserve a coherent continuous working passage. B, 12–16.5 seconds: a worker presses material against the machine and sparks appear, then diminish as contact changes. That visible response makes the practical action specific. There are native changes of framing; the original sampled views at 2 and 5.5 seconds appear to show the same bespectacled foreground worker, with another worker in the background. I cannot establish legal/person identity from this resemblance. It is not a single uninterrupted five-second camera take, though the initial shot contains a clear uninterrupted contact passage. I retract the provisional concern that the source necessarily substituted a different foreground worker: the close source check does not support that claim. C, 16.5–28.5 seconds: an overhead view of drawing equipment changes to a seated designer seen from the side. His paper, tools and repeated measured hand movement distinguish drawing from grinding and painting. The line's exact development is small in this framing; the record is more about continuing work than a finished drawing. Source coverage alone does not prove all views belong to one identified individual, and the film appropriately calls this a record rather than attributing a statement. D, 28.5–40.5 seconds: a reclining woman takes up the red vessel, tips it over a cup, returns it upright and holds the cup near her face. The relaxed carpet setting, nearby books and unusual reclining pour make this immediately distinguishable from industrial contact or design work. 'Pouring a drink' is a plausible visible action label; a fine liquid stream is not consistently resolvable in these sampled views. Nothing licenses interpreting her private satisfaction, family role or belief. The staged corporate-record caption is important. E, 40.5–52.5 seconds: the opening office man dissolves into a woman at another desk arrangement. Then she gathers a light rectangular file/papers, rises, leaves the frame and leaves the chair and room visible. The original source at 22–24.5 seconds confirms that the person-changing dissolve is native; it is not continuity of one individual. The latter woman's action is continuous and complete. This is the clearest exception to the common surface-changing motif: the hand carries the work away rather than visibly altering a retained object. The small on-screen word FILE remains an editorial object description, not verified archival terminology. Parallel section and ending The question card at 52.5–56 seconds is more useful than a universal statement about people. A surface, line, tool, cup and carried work are observably different consequences. At 56–75 the labeled reprises A/C/B/D/E make fine contact, drawing, forceful sparking contact and domestic pouring comparable without claiming simultaneity. E's seven seconds, versus the others' three, are justified by the time needed to gather, stand and exit. It gives an exception actual duration rather than merely calling it an exception in prose. 75–95 seconds is the largest remaining formal gap. Five equal four-second held final frames create a catalogue of endpoints; A, B, C and D have not all finished their practices. The labels correctly say the editor stops time rather than claiming the person stopped. That honesty prevents a false aftermath claim. It does not by itself make twenty seconds of identical editorial holding necessary. E alone has a genuinely vacated space. The ending's strongest change of understanding is therefore narrow: some work leaves the frame, while other work is simply arrested by the editor. This is a useful distinction but weaker in the images than in the explanatory labels. Concrete repair condition If the ending is intended to deepen the five-way comparison, replace the equal four-second freezes at 75–95 with unequal brief states justified by what can actually be seen: short labeled held samples for ongoing A/B/C/D, and a longer original-motion empty-office continuation for E. Do not manufacture four other 'after' locations or imply completed work from an active final frame. An actual revised ending should let a viewer, with the report hidden, distinguish a recorded departure from an editor's stop and explain why E receives longer. The current clear freeze labels should be preserved if any freeze remains. This is a form improvement within an already bounded visual pass, not evidence that missing participant testimony can be repaired by timing. Alternative comparison INDIVIDUAL PASSAGES preserves longer source context, but does not automatically preserve individuals better. B at 12–19 adds a machine close-up after the worker views. C at 19–39 continues into a drawing close-up; D at 39–55 extends the domestic gesture. E at 55–84 gives the departure and empty office substantial time, then at about 71 seconds moves to other hands operating office equipment and later a patterned surface. Calling those added shots one person's continuation would be unsupported. Its opening card explicitly acknowledges native cuts and additional people, which is correct. I prefer the main's concise five-record structure and selective E exception over the longer alternative's expanded E machinery sequence; the latter is source-context evidence rather than a fuller personal account. Representation and source scope REPRESENTATION.json explicitly marks names not established, self-description absent, belief not inferred, no attributed speech/translation, and consent history unestablished. The actual opening and ending cards do not invent these missing supports. Pottery is an early industrial/domestic archive record; Master Hands is industrial promotion; the three American Look passages are staged corporate images. Three records sharing a promotional film family do not supply cultural or testimonial breadth equivalent to five participant-chosen practices. These sources may reveal commercial representations of work and leisure as much as ordinary routine. The timing ledger says each sound excerpt stays with its own source, with historical score/narration possibly present and unauditioned. That is a record of assembly, not proof of distinct individual voices, synchronous tool contact or representational safety in the audible result. No subtitles or beliefs are invented visibly, but I cannot audit what the soundtrack says without audition. Preserve that AV limitation. Strengths to protect The five actions are memorable by setting, object and consequence rather than by demographic or belief labels. The grinding contact and E's full departure are particularly concrete. Record IDs, staged/promotional context, reprise labeling and explicit editor-held frames keep the parallel structure accountable. The film succeeds within that archive scope; it should not be promoted as fulfilling the original consenting-participant and testimony proof.