Run the pre-David pass on a scene. The pass's brief is [redacted]/.cl…

I'll start by reading the skill brief and the required files.

Findings — scene 23, "The good staff"

Part 1

"You've not said what you're going to look at, all day," she said. "Not to me, not to the girl." — Part 1, check every count and every fact / a line that contradicts itself. He told Sorrel the whole of it that same morning, in detail (scene 19: the grass spending its savings, the rings, Fenholt, the chain), and she then recites that same content back at him here, which contradicts the charge she has just made. Replace with the true version — that he said it once and has been calling it a consulting trip ever since: "You told me the whole of it this morning and you've not said it since," she said. "Not to the girl at all. Since noon it's been a field, and a crop in rings, and a consulting trip, and two weeks. So here it is."
"You've told me two weeks four times today and the rider once." — Part 1, count the occurrences. On the page he says two weeks to Sorrel in one speech (scene 21) and to Peri (scene 22); what he said to the rider was that there would be two letters, and nothing about a fortnight. Replace: "You've told me two weeks twice today and the girl once."
"He took one out again, because Fenholt had washing water like anywhere else and two weeks was two weeks." — Part 1, a reason attached to nothing / the clauses disagree. The first clause argues for fewer robes, the second argues for more, and they are joined as if they agreed. Replace the second clause so both pull one way: "because Fenholt had washing water like anywhere else, and a farmer's household washes for a guest."
"If you take three you'll be carrying a wet one down a road, because you'll not wait for it to dry before you leave, because you never have." — Part 1, does the justification distinguish? The wet robe follows from the household washing one and him leaving early, which happens whether he packs two or three; her reason does not separate two from three. Replace: "If you take three, the third comes home dry and unworn, and you'll have carried it eighty miles to prove you didn't need it."
"Most days he had no need of the breath. On those days it had been the whole of the difference…" — Part 1, a pronoun with no clear antecedent. "Those days" grammatically points at the most-days just named, and means the opposite. Replace: "Most days he had no need of the breath. On the days in that list it was the whole of the difference, and he had never once worked one of them without the staff."
"You've a use for all three. You've just told yourself what they are." — Part 1, check the facts inside the scene. He weighed them in silence; the uses were narration, not speech, so she is crediting him with something the room did not contain. Replace: "You've a use for all three. You weighed them and you put them down in the order you use them."
She went to the corner … "It isn't," said Sorrel — Part 1, check the dependents, against scene 19. The good staff was the fourth item on the list she wrote in front of him that morning, and he read it over her shoulder without objecting; the scene plays the staff as a thing that has not yet come up. Do not cut the beat — own it: add, before she crosses the room, It had been the last thing on the list she wrote that morning, and he had read it over her shoulder and said nothing about it then either.
"She picked the frost list up off the desk" — Part 1, the wrong noun for a real thing. The line she then speaks is "Fourth item on my list", about a gate latch; the frost list is a different document and has nothing to do with it. Replace: "She picked her own list up off the desk, where it had been all evening."
"The gate at the third bend," said Edwin. — Part 1, a reply that does not answer the line before it. It follows her flat statement that he will be gone longer than a fortnight, and the swerve is deliberate but the narration does not own it, so it reads as a break in the scene rather than as him ducking. Add one clause: Edwin let that stand where it was. "The gate at the third bend," he said.
"because he was going to that field to be believed about it" — Part 1, a word doing a job it cannot do. "Believed about it" will not carry the meaning; the antecedent of "it" is the field. Replace: "because he was going to that field to be believed, and a man in the robe he has walked two days in is believed less."
"which was the one thing about carrying a pack that he was certain of" — Part 1, does it distinguish? He was certain about six other things that afternoon (twelve miles, boots, stockings, bread that keeps, not cheese, a knife he can sharpen). Replace: "which was the thing about carrying a pack he was surest of."

Part 4

"I've told her, and her neighbours, and the whole of that parish by supper" — Part 4 / edwin.md 7a, the inventory pile of named instances is redacted's construction and banned for him. Replace: "I've told that parish by supper, and her with it."
"That's my reason. Yours is that you'd rather not be seen carrying it. Mine's the better one." — Part 4, what does this person want and what do they know, plus a construction leak: "That's your reason. It's the better one here" is Edwin's marked concession in canon (edwin.md 2), and her paraphrase also misstates his reason, which was what the farmer and her neighbours will conclude, not vanity. Replace: "That's my reason. Yours is what her neighbours make of a staff. One of us is going to be wrong about something tomorrow and I'd rather it was you about the neighbours."

Part 2 / Part 5

"the whole of the subject" … "the whole of the difference" … "the whole of that parish" — Part 5, a construction used more than once in a scene is that scene's tic. Three in 1,550 words, and the first two are the empty kind. redacted sentence: unpublished prose
"He weighed them anyway, one at a time, and laid them side by side, and looked at them." — Part 6, prefer the participial form to a chain of "and"s in a physical beat. Replace: "He weighed them anyway, one at a time, laid them side by side, and looked at them."

Em-dash count is 1 in 1,549 words, well inside budget; no "[amount] of the", "I'll say it", "to be mine" or "it's against you"; one narrator aphorism (the kit of a man who had not been anywhere in forty years); Sorrel spends "Hm" once and carries a list-ordinal; Edwin's bare "No." is attached to its reason.

redacted sentence: unpublished prose