Independent visual/source critique — 075 WITHIN REACH V01
Verdict: bounded VISUAL PASS for an archival adaptation comparing two recorded situations; full audiovisual and original-experiment acceptance remain INCONCLUSIVE.

Method: inspected all six ordered one-second main sheets and all seven longer SOURCE PASSAGES sheets before SESSION_LEDGER/SOURCE_CHECKS. Then inspected decoded main frames at 6, 23.5, 27, 39, 48, 53, 60.5, 72.5 and 83 seconds, and ordered 4 fps samples of 23–31, 52–63 and 76–87. Finally inspected source-extract frames A20/A30 and B13/B62. These are image-sequence observations, not native-speed playback or listening. Source tracks, response sound, numerical timing feel and target-display acceptance were not auditioned/certified. Parent reports both complete-decode gates passed; I do not substitute that for perception.

Actual events: 3–23 shows a seated infant against patterned upholstery and lace, looking, reaching and bringing hands together while a balloon changes position and intermittently obscures the child. 23–approximately 39 shows another infant supported at the torso by an adult near a Christmas tree; the adult changes the child's position while the child's hand reaches toward round ornaments/branches. The support and reach coexist visibly within shots, rather than being manufactured by a cross-record reaction cut. Around 39–49 a native change shows lifting above the adult's head, lowering and face contact. Around 50 a different adult holds the infant. At 52–63 the first record resumes: balloon, hands behind the head, then an adult forearm visibly controls the balloon around 60; the child subsequently smiles/brings hands together. At 63–87 the second record continues through supporting, face contact and the child's hand against the adult's hair/head, especially around 72–73 and 83–84. I cannot label the child's expressions as crying or infer consent, pleasure, distress or caregiver competence from these images.

The strongest specific achievement is the late visible hand controlling the balloon (about 60–61) against the already visible torso support in the tree passage (23–31). These are different adult contributions to the opportunity for contact. They undermine any simple reading of isolated infant ability. The final passage contains ongoing support and changing contact rather than a fabricated matched object success. No lid test, controlled condition or developmental result is shown.

Source audit: the visible source samples agree with the two situations, including source A420/A430 and B128/B177 seconds. Ledger order is A400–420, B128–157, A420–431, B157–181: both records advance, with no within-record rewind presented as a fresh response. Native cuts are retained and explicitly acknowledged; the images do not establish an uninterrupted session. The footer and end card distinguish records and deny milestone comparison. Metadata/consent history is not evidence of the children's or adults' subjective experience, and that experience is not claimed here.

Largest remaining gap: the final 63–87 passage spends much of its time on adult/child face and hair contact rather than the earlier object-reaching problem. This broadens the film into support/intimacy, but the transition from A's smile near 61–62 to B's more contracted facial expressions can still invite an affective ranking. The labels do not eliminate that possible visual reading. It is a concern, not a demonstrated false causal claim or blocker within the stated archival scope.

Falsifiable optional repair: shorten the late face-contact stretch while retaining a complete visible change of the child's own hand contact and the adult's supporting grip; then check whether the ending still recalls adult mediation of reach rather than resolving into contrasting facial expressions. Do not select matching smiles or construct equivalent successes. If the work were to claim developmental comparison, voluntary enjoyment, uninterrupted observation or response causation across these records, the present evidence would fail that stronger claim.

Comparison: the 95-second SOURCE PASSAGES version groups A then B, offers slightly more context and makes source continuity easier to follow. The main's A/B/A/B return better activates memory of the balloon and contrasting adult interventions, but creates the greater comparison risk described above. Neither version establishes a controlled experiment. My visual preference for the main is qualified by that risk; unscored duration and audio cannot be ranked from this inspection.