C.39.WA:4.5 - Compare the actual account with the original question

Describe what the candidate actually explains, temporarily setting aside its title, field label and declaration of completeness. Compare that content with the expectation from section 4.1 across the assigned scope. Inspect the general construction and its relations as well as local claims. Recover what the cases concretize and which consequential variations of the declared subject they expose. Compare the knowledge and operations available in the general account with those displayed in its cases. If following a running case has shifted attention to its application domain, restore the explanation of the Method being taught and the return from its performance. Retain the useful case content.

For each consequential conclusion, retain its subject, property, scope and grounds. Truth of a claim, membership in a field, coherence of a construction, coverage of an assigned account, usability by a reader and effect in work answer different questions. Select the conclusion the assignment needs and obtain its basis.

When source preservation is promised, F.0.2.RC tests whether the action, conditions, qualifications and returns can be reconstructed through the receiving explanation. Its source cut follows the promise: a commitment to a whole corpus requires that recovery basis. For a new synthesis, identify what the author constructed and how it is supported. A reader’s own successful invention locates a useful contribution but does not make it content of the candidate.

Return one of the substantive outcomes the evidence supports: an adequate account for the named use; a precise missing construction; a contradicted inference; an unavailable ground; or a changed, explicitly agreed question. Preserve a useful fragment with its qualified conclusion. Keep the original task open while a required contribution remains unavailable.

Questions: What does this text actually explain? Which required constructions and connections are supplied? Which are missing, unsupported or still unexamined? Did the subject or criterion change, and on what authority?