Independent actual-export repair review — 078 A FORM, THEN A PAGE V02
Verdict: bounded VISUAL PASS for the revised archival state-contrast/return adaptation. V01's unchanged-replay objection is cleared within this narrower scope. The full material cycle, documented cleanup/reuse/changed workshop, and native-speed audiovisual acceptance remain UNPERFORMED/INCONCLUSIVE. This is not a pass for the original full-cycle prompt.

Method: inspected all eight ordered one-second main sheets and all six SOURCE CONTEXTS V02 sheets, actual decoded main frames at3,7,9,12,55,78,91,93,98,100,107,108,110,112,114,115,117, and ordered8fps actual-output samples108–114.5. Read current MATERIAL_SOURCE_GRAPH only after the picture review. The earlier independent source audit inspected original Q124–136 densely; its native-cut and identity limits remain unchanged. No audio audition or native-speed playback was performed. The parent reports a separate complete decode/frame count of the final main. Control comparison here is from its actual ordered sheets, not real-time playback.

Observed repair: 3–8 opens on Q's man and bare composed dark form, rather than V01's paper/tape mechanism. 8–13 explicitly freezes the128s reference; the rectangular blocks, channels and man's hand are available to remember. The intervening form labor13–40 and press40–55 still show physical work and complete hand/press actions. 57–78 returns to Q's original edited form/page sequence;78–92 shows the publication handled, pointed at and read. The 55–57 card denies a tracked sheet and an observed blank-to-print transformation. The92–98 card expressly denies cleanup/reuse/end-of-shift-room evidence and describes the coming return as a comparison.

98–108 now actually places the remembered128s form beside the132s already printed white sheet. At full resolution both states and the before/after-native-cut labels are legible. The captions say class contrast, not identity of one sheet or form, and explicitly retain the unobserved transformation. Crucially, the pictures themselves differ: dark relief/block layout remains in apparatus on the left; white printed imagery is carried by a flexible sheet on the right. This is more than relabeling V01's identical image.

108–114.5 then shows the post-cut source unit in movement: sheet lies at the press; hands grasp its edge around111.5–112, bend and lift it around112–113.5, and hold/display its printed layout upright by114. The final114.5–118 freeze is labeled a replayed held final frame, without room/reuse inference. The lift/display is continuous in the inspected sequence and agrees with original Q129.25–135.75. It does not show the page becoming printed. The audited source cut around129.2 still separates the bare form from an already printed-page setup.

Why the return now gains a specific meaning: the opening's dense dark blocks can first be attended to as an arrangement being worked. After the labor and filmed readership, the final white flexible object shows how a printed arrangement can leave machinery and be carried/displayed between people. The pair makes the remembered arrangement and portable readable surface jointly available, then the lift supplies an actual change of physical relation to the apparatus. It remains a class/source analogy; I cannot identify the exact opening form as the matrix for the final page. This is a modest but concrete altered reading that the V01 identical tape reprise did not supply.

Largest remaining gap: the film remains very explanatory. Opening reference hold8–13, gap card92–98, static comparison98–108 and final freeze114.5–118 total substantial nonmoving time. The10-second pair can become a diagram plateau after its contrast is already legible; real-time unscored perception is still required to assess that duration. This is a pacing risk, not an observed false causal claim or blocker for the state-contrast proposition. Nor should the staged/presentational quality of the archival readership be mistaken for independently verified private response.

Optional falsifiable refinement: compare a shorter state-pair hold with the present10seconds, preserving time to locate both images and read the native-cut/identity limit. Retain the complete subsequent grasp→lift→display and the explicit freeze label. If a viewer can still identify both recorded states and the unsupported edge, a shorter plate would reduce the risk of the ending becoming a captioned catalog. Do not conceal the native cut or claim blank-paper impression merely to make the return stronger.

Control: SOURCE CONTEXTS groups P's form/press work and Q's original form/page/readership sequence without the main's reprise and comparison plate. It is stronger for inspecting source chronology; the main is now stronger for explicitly recalling the opening form against a different material class and then showing the sheet leave its support. Unlike V01, I do not prefer the control simply to avoid an empty final loop. I cannot compare their sound or experienced timing from this inspection.

Boundaries to preserve: no same-sheet/form identity across the source cut; no observed blank-to-print transformation; no cleanup/reuse/renewal; no newly changed post-shift room; no native historical acquisition-speed claim beyond transfer-rate presentation. A changed musical phrase, actual room/contact sound and the full original real-workshop cycle have not been certified or supplied by this bounded visual pass. V01 critique and REPAIR_SOURCE_AUDIT_B remain valid records of the earlier result and the source limit.