# Thought-Development Audit — Chapter 18 (`Eight Tuesdays`, "Returned Scarf")

Reflective passages identified and traced: the apartment/underlayer paragraph (line 5), the catalog-mailing plan (line 7), the flyer inspection (line 9), the Mara-decline beat (line 13), the Theo-text beat (line 17), the first `After Class` study (line 23), the Thursday two-columns session (lines 25–31), the soup/lie beat (line 43), the Saturday scarf history (lines 47–49), the fifth study (line 89), the Monday row-of-studies paragraph (line 91), and the Monday ledger sequence (lines 95–97).

## Criterion 1 — Pre-solved reflection: DEVELOPED

Strongest counter-candidates considered:

- **Line 95 (Monday ledger / Tasker).** This is the chapter's most syllogistic paragraph and the calibration's named target, so I ran the straight-line test hard. First sentence: "Then she opened the laptop, because Monday night was when she'd told herself she'd look at the columns again." Last: "She wasn't going to ratify it by fleeing on his schedule." The last could not follow the first with nothing lost: the middle re-verifies the unchanged terms in concrete tokens ("$49,500, the bay, the ninety days, Friday noon") and gathers the seventeenth in objects with weight from Ch15/Ch17 ("riding the F, before the acknowledgments page, before Eileen Brennan's name, before the back stair") before the refusal lands. The thought also developed across the chapter rather than arriving whole: Thursday's pass (line 31) caught the same impulse without naming it ("sending it tonight would have nothing to do with ceiling height. She left it in drafts") — a wrong-first-pass-then-return structure. The stay/leave decision itself stays unresolved, as the thread ledger requires through Ch22. Survives — but its echo paragraph fails, see Criterion 2.
- **Line 5 (apartment/underlayer).** Contains the rule's actual doubling-back, executed in objects: "he'd been wrong about her, she'd decided in Week 6, a wrong first pass. Standing in it Wednesday morning with wet palms, she could see the first pass differently." The revision is funded by the two taped boxes, the colander she keeps unpacking, and the three brighter rectangles — all on the page before the landing sentence. Survives.
- **Line 91 (row of studies / `After Class`).** The appositive triplet ("a counterweight, the leaving side of *After Class*, the answer panel to a question she and Theo had set up together") names the studies' meaning in thesis terms, which is the announce pattern the calibration flags. I checked whether concrete objects developed the conclusion first: they did, across lines 23–89 — the door hinge-side "at the angle you'd see it from if you were already moving toward it," the chairs "at the angles people left them," the table cut off by the doorframe, the lights-off room, her own pulled-out chair. The paragraph harvests an orientation the objects built; its new movement (face up = studies, pinned up = message) develops through handling, not adjectives. Survives, narrowly.

## Criterion 2 — Missing concrete development: PRE-SOLVED (1 instance)

1. **Line 97**, full paragraph: "The floor-plan question sat in drafts where she'd left it. Friday noon was four days off, and she would answer it as the person who'd made two columns, not as the person who'd stood on a back stair." Failure type: development by restated stakes. Every conclusion here was already reached one paragraph up — "she would be answering Theo, not Nia" and "fleeing on his schedule" (line 95). This paragraph adds no new material, only a second polished antithesis matched to the first; twin aphorisms closing consecutive paragraphs is the signature of prose announcing results instead of thinking. Worse, the paragraph names its own concrete object in its first sentence — the draft — and then refuses to touch it, reaching for abstraction ("the person who'd...") instead.

## Criterion 3 — Split cumulative movement: DEVELOPED

Counter-candidates examined:

- **Line 89:** "She kept it dry and exact. The chair did nothing. It was wood at an angle, viewed from the door." The merge ("The chair did nothing: it was wood at an angle, viewed from the door") would hand the object exactly the rhetorical lift June is denying it; the flat breaks enact the refusal of message. The breaks do work.
- **Line 49:** "Every Tuesday the return had become next Tuesday. There were no more next Tuesdays." Merged with a comma or dash, the cancellation loses its full stop; the break is the door shutting. Does work.
- **Line 95:** "He had chosen for her for six weeks without her knowing. She wasn't going to ratify it by fleeing on his schedule." Considered the `and`-merge per the choppy→connected example. Excused: the first sentence is the Ch17 grievance restated as settled fact, the second is the new decision; the period marks the decision, and June's voice card specifies "under pressure: shorter syntax."

## Criterion 4 — Allowable efficiency: DEVELOPED (allowances honored, each named)

- **Line 7** ("The plan fit in one line, and it required no one."): clipped decisive cognition during the rupture week. Voice card: "what her body does under stress: packs, sorts, cleans brushes she has not used" and "under pressure: shorter syntax." The catalog-mailing plan is her stress behavior, not evaded reflection.
- **Line 17** (Theo's "Okay. No chair." processed in one beat, phone exiled to the bad outlet): the plot needs the Theo question unresolved — confession is protected to the final act per the thread ledger. Voice card stress response: "gets quieter, funnier, more exact, then exits."
- **Line 13** ("and that was the part that cost"): a single cumulative sentence (claim plus consequence), per the rule's preferred in-sentence development; voice-card interiority rhythm "perception first, judgment second."
- **Line 43** ("She'd told a lie to avoid a dinner so she could paint a room she was also avoiding. Then she rinsed the bowl."): self-rebuke third, per the interiority rhythm; the deflating rinse is the development, and expanding it into rumination would violate the no-emotional-weather rule.

## REVISION ORDERS

1. **Line 97.** Delete or rebuild the second antithesis ("she would answer it as the person who'd made two columns, not as the person who'd stood on a back stair") — the conclusion already landed at line 95 and may not be announced twice. Replace the restatement with concrete development drawn from material already in scene: (a) have June reopen the draft and reread her own sentence "Ceiling height matters to me" against what sending it tonight would actually be doing — let the object she named carry the movement; or (b) develop the four days through Asha's clock, already planted at line 39 ("before the 4th gives me time to reshuffle") and the Kessler headcount due the 15th, so the deferral acquires a cost ledgered in someone else's schedule rather than a self-description; or (c) one physical act on the notebook columns — adding the $1,180-versus-$1,475 rent line from the Ch15 terms. One concrete movement, no replacement aphorism.

OVERALL: PRE-SOLVED (1)
