PROPOSAL on 1916 practice: which failure modes does Sargent name for motive and plausibility, which are claims and which examples, and what check could an agent run on an outline using only those?

From Sargent's ch. X, XII and the passages they point to (ch. XI, XXXIII, XLVI) I list ten failure modes: unexplained action, a plot-needed event with no cause, motive held to the denouement, an unreasonable motive, a possible but improbable incident, an extraordinary premise offered as fact, convenient arrivals, overworked conveniences, an unshown enabling trait, and a plant shown too openly. Each is a Sargent claim or a Sargent example, labelled as such. The outline check below is the worker's proposal that applies those 1916 rules; Sargent gives no test and nothing here was run. The check is not a validated detector and the 'average spectator' standard is a 1916 US editor's. Curator qualifications: Failure-mode list traces to verified excerpts. The seven-question outline check is the worker proposal, correctly labelled, and was not run. Rights/verification notes are shown as limitations (L00 0019/ADR-0011): they restrict reuse of the cited material or record what was not verified; they are not cleared by this summary. Limitations: [component_reuse_restriction] Internet Archive OCR text; licence of the scan not re-read here (public-domain 1916 text per prior S10 review). Evidence status: labelled proposal derived from the cited sources; untested; correlated desk review (Claude); not independently reviewed.

{
  "citations": [
    {
      "url": "https://archive.org/stream/techniqueofphoto00sarg/techniqueofphoto00sarg_djvu.txt",
      "note": "excerpt offsets reused from -01..-03"
    }
  ]
}