FILM 071 FINAL V02 — INDEPENDENT CRITIC A, FIRST REVIEW
Verdict: QUALIFIED VISUAL PASS for a declared virtual demonstration of one decoded parent, a newly marked selection and its reduced derivative. Whole audiovisual engagement and the literal fixed-camera physical-carrier/handling proof remain INCONCLUSIVE. I did not independently review the superseded V01 and do not claim to have caught or accepted its earlier crop.

Method: Inspected all six ordered one-second actual V02 sheets before reading CARRIER_LEDGER.json or prompt. Independently extracted/viewed actual current MP4 frames53s and81s, then independently extracted source203.mp4 at2.5s and examined its stated crop. Extraction succeeded. Temporal still inspection does not establish native-speed rhythm or sound/narration intelligibility. No comparative reference was viewed.

Actual development:
0–3 title.3–15 archive excerpt shows a child handling a reel, then a closer view of reel/hands. It is labeled source record, original transfer duration, source audio muted. The pictured reel is not itself an available physical carrier on the virtual table.
15–19 explicit virtual-worktable seam says decoded copies are not newly filmed physical objects and that rulers count pixels, with film gauge unknown. This protects the subsequent diagram from being mistaken for a physical ruler/film-width experiment.
19–33 panelA enters and remains: source frame320×240, displayed288×216. A100-parent-pixel bar is shown.
33–49 panelB enters: the same parent with a new red crop rectangle. Source dimensions192×112 are attached to the selection, not to the whole parent. The red mark is expressly attributed to this edit. The selection removes face/head but retains hands and reel.
49–79 panelC enters: a visibly blockier cropped derivative,48×28, enlarged to288×168. Parent and marked parent remain available beside it, enabling direct comparison of excluded face/context and lost sampling detail. This is one transformation lineage, not three unrelated trivia objects. The persistent overall comparison from roughly49–79 is visually almost static; any further developing argument during it depends substantially on unauditioned narration.
79–83 approximately: images leave the table in succession (actual81s has emptyA whileB/C remain; subsequent frames removeB thenC).
83–86: empty image panels retain pixel rulers, dimensions and the red selection rectangle. The red rectangle is now plainly an editorial operation/trace rather than an intrinsic feature of a historical picture.86–90 credits reiterate digital rather than physical measurement.

Source/crop/calibration truth:
Independent source2.5s extraction is320×240. Applying crop(64,128,256,240) gives192×112 and visibly retains torso/hands/reel while excluding the face entirely. The actual red-box/derivative subject agrees with this extraction. Dividing both dimensions by4 yields48×28; it does not recover detail or grain. At6× display scale the derivative occupies288×168, while parent at0.9× occupies288×216. This explains why equal on-screen panel widths do not imply equal underlying pixel counts.
Actual53s shows the ruler comparison clearly: the parent bar is approximately90 screen pixels, representing100 parent pixels; the derivative bar approximately60 screen pixels, representing10 derivative pixels. The bars therefore use their own explicitly labeled file units. They are not a common physical-mm reference, and the film does not claim that they identify reel gauge.
The exact source resolution and arithmetic support internal digital calibration; they cannot determine the historical film's width, original scan sampling, optical detail or actual production marks. The lower-resolution blocks are newly introduced by reduction/display, not evidence of recovered film grain.

Narration/status:
The supplied script distinguishes a decoded copy from pictured reel, calls the red box an editorial choice, leaves physical gauge unresolved and identifies resampling as a new decision. These are appropriately limited claims and are visible or independently checkable where asserted. I read the script only after first picture inspection and did not listen to its synthetic delivery; I cannot certify all those qualifications are intelligible at normal speed. No recollection or historical handling by an invented narrator is supplied.

Largest gap and repair condition:
The construction develops a valid comparison, but a roughly30-second unchanged three-panel tableau may flatten its temporal argument. That is an unresolved perceptual risk, not something static sampling can conclusively fail. Test the final export at normal speed: a viewer should explain a specific selection loss and a separate resolution loss, then explain why the remaining red rectangle is evidence of this edit rather than an original mark. If the long hold contributes only repetition, shorten it or synchronize one plainly labeled region comparison with the relevant narration. Do not imply missing historical physical evidence merely to add drama.

Scope and blockers:
No blocking source-association/crop/dimension error was found for this digital adaptation. It does not perform the literal physical scan/print/display comparison, continuous real handling, contact sound, known film gauge or historical carrier examination required by the full prompt. These remain unperformed, not silently passed. Protect the explicit virtual seam, co-visible parent, truthful face exclusion, distinction between selection and sampling, pixel-unit bars, uncertain physical gauge and remaining editorial trace.