FILM 075 V01 — INDEPENDENT CRITIC A, FIRST REVIEW
Verdict: QUALIFIED VISUAL PASS for the narrowly declared comparison of reaching/offered objects and adult positioning across two archive records. The full practical-container attempt/session proof, native-speed pacing and audiovisual experience remain INCONCLUSIVE or unperformed. The visible material does not support developmental ranking, exact ages/identities, caregiver relationships or an abandonment diagnosis.

Method: Inspected all six ordered one-second main sheets before SESSION_LEDGER.json/prompt. Independently extracted actual main27/58/73s, native sourceB17s and sourceA26s, and denser2fps main tree/return passages. Then audited the source map. I also independently compared all84 one-second picture samples in the four output blocks with their mapped decoded source-extract pictures: minimum grayscale correlation .996, means .997–.999. This supports sampled association/order and retained native imagery, not behavioral interpretation or original continuous-session identity. No native-speed playback/audio audition occurred. Main extractions succeeded. Control full validation was subsequently confirmed, but no independent whole-control viewing is claimed here.

Actual observations and exact times:
0–3 title explicitly names two home-movie records and different objects/adult interventions.
3–23 recordA: a seated child against patterned upholstery/lace, with balloon repeatedly entering/leaving reachable space. The child watches, shifts gaze, lifts hands and brings hands together. A hand/balloon presentation is visible; its off-screen control cannot be reconstructed completely. This is an offered moving object, not an observed resistant container or self-set practical puzzle.
23–39 approximately, recordB: a child near a decorated tree reaches toward an ornament/branches while an adult supports the body from behind/side. Actual27s and dense25–39 frames show that reach and support in one image. The environment supplies a different arrangement: stable hanging objects, floor/tree, adult hands around the child, rather than an independently pursued comparable task.
Around39 a native source cut shifts to an adult lifting/holding the child, then closer interaction. Around50 another native source passage introduces an adult face near the child. These do not prove a tree attempt's immediate continuous outcome. The film's source-record labels/native-cut disclaimer are necessary and appropriate.
52–63 returns to recordA in its own next source order. Arms extend while the balloon passes; around58–59 hands remain behind/near the head with no balloon in reach. This is a visible lull/change of orientation, not secure evidence of frustration, fatigue or abandonment. Around60 an adult hand brings the balloon back;61–62 the child smiles/moves hands. It would be false to credit this as an unassisted solved task or a child choosing to resume the same independent problem.
63–87 continues recordB's adult/child interaction, including head/face/hair reaching and being held. Actual73s shows the child's hand near the adult's hair/forehead while the adult visibly faces the child. Later close holding/contact belongs to this source's own sequence. It is an observed interaction rather than equal success matched toA's balloon.
87–90 credits deny a lid test, developmental ranking, known caregiver status/verified consent and uninterrupted session; original source order/native cuts are disclosed.

Practical relation and differences:
The shared visible relation is an object's/body's reachable space shaped by another person's placement and movement. A's offered balloon moves in/out; B's tree reach is supported and then gives way to adult bodily contact. Both settings are recognizable after return. This relation is perceptible without narration, but weaker/more general than two complete attempts at a common resistant practical problem. Do not claim the latter. The returnA pause has screen time, yet an adult's reintroduction of the balloon supplies the next change; it is not an independently observed abandonment/resumption judgment.

Source/response audit:
Main source windows areA400–420, B128–157, A420–431, B157–181. They are monotonic within each reel; the return resumes the selected source where its earlier block ended. The sampled picture check supports that mapping. Cross-record cuts are clearly labeledA/B, with distinct monochrome/color settings. No sampled edit places anA adult response intoB or vice versa. Native cuts within a reel prevent a claim of one unbroken attempt/session or guaranteed person continuity. Identical clothing/apparent resemblance alone cannot establish exact historical identities. No original voices/contact track is supplied; editorial silence is disclosed, not represented as a captured quiet room.

Largest remaining gap / observable repair condition:
The montage sustains a broad reach/support relation but cannot establish a complete shared practical task, securely attributable assistance outcomes or continuous attempt units. This limits full original-prompt acceptance. If that stronger proof is required, find authorized source passages showing each object's practical resistance, a continuous hesitation/reach/pause, and its own adult response, with provenance/session boundaries established. Otherwise retain the narrow offered-object/reaching framing and test native-speed viewers: they should describe environmental/adult differences without ranking the children or naming a success/failure result unsupported by the pictures.

Strengths to protect: environment around hands/objects; retained timing rather than accelerated achievement montage; clear source labels; unforced unequal activities; adult-caused changes visible in frame; no borrowed sound, score, invented diagnosis or matched triumphant endpoints. No visual blocker was found for that explicitly limited archive observation; unavailable caregiver/consent/session/contact-sound proof and full audiovisual acceptance must remain qualified.