PROPOSAL (1916 practice as the basis): what checks could an agent run on a draft scene list for plot-by-action, continuity and establishment, using only what Sargent's Chapters XLIII-XLV state, and what in the check is only the lead's or worker's addition?

Agent check, steps 1-8 labelled '1916 practice' (each tied to a Sargent claim in this candidate's evidence) and steps 9-10 labelled PROPOSAL (worker additions, not in Sargent). The check reads a numbered scene list, locates the first vital action, the premise treatment, the establishing scene for each plot role, and each scene break's time, room, dress and entrance. It reports violations by rule and scene number. Sargent gives no test, no measured threshold and no props rule; the only criterion he states for casual setup is the 'reason-back' contrast. The check has not been run. It is not a validated detector and the rules are 1916 silent-film conventions. Curator correction 2026-10-24 (discovery audit record C3-B1088-01, curator-reviewed C3R-0695; excerpts re-located by independent curator GET 2026-10-24): Correction. C3-B303-S108-08 says the only criterion Sargent states for casual setup is the reason-back contrast, and its step 2 says to check that scene 1 is the first scene that shows vital action. Both are too strong. Chapter XLV paragraph 8 adds a second stated requirement: establishment should be planned to seem as casual as possible and should not be given undue importance or made to look too palpably an effort to identify the character. Chapter XLIII paragraph 6 states the first-vital-action rule only for a story that does not require a premise. The record's other steps (premise handled in step 3) are not affected, and its quoted excerpts are accurate. The text was the same when the record was written (1916 text, OCR read on 2026-10-24). Curator qualifications: Plot-of-action, premise vs plot, suspense-bearing factors, continuity (time, place and fact leaders) and establishing rules are verified as Sargent's text. In -08, steps 9-10 are correctly labelled worker proposals. 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": "sar.flat (a3cff7eb) ch. XLIII-XLV offsets per candidate"
    }
  ]
}