FILM 078 — INDEPENDENT SOURCE REPAIR AUDIT A
Source inspected: original batch74_78/media/papermans_paper_512kb.mp4,124–136s. No new footage made, no assembly reviewed or approved in this audit.

Finding: QUALIFIED FACTUAL SUPPORT for a later lifted printed-proof state as a durable visible trace. This is more than the unchanged perforated-paper reprise in V01. It does NOT by itself prove a full material cycle, cleanup/reuse, same-sheet identity across native cuts or a changed end-of-shift room. V01's INCONCLUSIVE cycle finding remains preserved.

Method: Extracted ordered4fps frames across124–136s, inspected both24-frame sheets, then extracted keyframes124.5,128.9,129.15,129.25,130,132.5,133,133.5,134,134.5,135,135.7s. Used scene-change detection as a locator and verified its principal cut in images. Source is320×240/29.97fps. Static ordered inspection cannot certify normal-speed tactile rhythm, contact sound or original capture-time behavior.

Action/cut limits:
124–approximately129.19: an operator moves a hand roller over/around a dark exposed type/image form, with a hand steadying its edge. Blocks and picture areas remain visible; there is no sheet being tracked into this view from an earlier operation.
Native hard cut at approximately129.196s (verified source129.15 versus129.25) changes to another camera view of a press bed with paper/image-bearing areas and roller apparatus. This interrupts continuous same-form/sheet/operation proof. Similar apparatus and layout support a printing-workflow relation, not guaranteed identity of the individual pre-cut surface or a documented uninterrupted transfer.
129.25–133.2 approximately: the bed/apparatus moves through the frame, with pale paper and dark image areas visible. The shot enters printing already in progress; it does not plainly show one initially blank sheet placed on a specifically matched pre-cut form. Avoid claiming that full transition from blankness was continuously witnessed.
133.3–134.3 approximately: the operator grasps the paper edge and visibly lifts/peels a sheet away. This is a concrete separation of paper from the working surface, not an inference based only on juxtaposed still objects.
134.3–136: the same apparent shot follows the lifted sheet upward/outward; printed pictures/text blocks remain on the flexible sheet as the operator displays/inspects it. Actual135/135.7 show the printed face clearly. The changing framing around134–135 appears to be camera movement following the lift, not a native hard cut. No other visible cut was found within129.25–135.75 in dense inspection; detector did not locate one there. Thus the lift-to-displayed-printed-object relation has stronger within-shot support than the earlier form-to-paper relation across129.196.

What the pictures warrant:
- A dark assembled/inked-looking form and manual surface work are visible before the cut.
- A later paper lift with a persistent printed trace is visible after it.
- The printed trace persists while the sheet bends/is held; it is not simply an image remaining on the stationary type bed.
- The before/after layouts have plausible page-block/pictorial correspondence. At320×240, angle, mirror/rotation possibilities and the native cut prevent an exact glyph-level or confidently unique same-design identification in this audit. Do not make precise matching marks or an exact identity claim solely from this resemblance.
- This supports 'form/printing labour, then a later printed proof lifted in the same source record,' with native-cut distinction retained. It does not support 'we tracked this exact form and sheet continuously from blank paper to this proof.'

Repair implication, not an approval of an unrendered V02:
Replacing an unchanged opening reprise with this actual later proof-lift could supply a specific visible new material state and a more consequential representation of work→printed trace. Its final assembly would still need independent actual review to establish that viewers recognize the relation and that the return is earned. Preserve the129.196 cut limit, show enough of the continuous lift/printed face, and do not rename this trace cleanup, recycled material, same-object recovery or whole-room renewal. A bare-form opening and later printed-sheet ending are different views/states; they are not the original prompt's measured changed-room composition or a completed cleanup cycle. Declaring those limits remains necessary but does not itself fulfill them.

Evidence images retained in film78/criticA/: Q124_136_1.jpg, Q124_136_2.jpg and Q_keyframes.jpg. These are source-inspection derivatives, not new documentary content.