# Candidate-code and theme-review ledger

Authored analytical exercise based on retained local recognition outputs. These labels are proposed review choices, not completed codes or research findings. Independent audio wording remains unverified. Source recording: Library of Congress ncr002360. Exact excerpts, source audio and settings: /data/thematic-coding-record.json .

| Source passage across versions | Candidate descriptive label | Inclusion condition | Present evidence state |
|---|---|---|---|
| A-tiny.en cue 7 / B-small.en cue 8 | needing a job | Checked expression of job need within the exchange | Machine candidate; wording check pending |
| A-tiny.en cue 22 / B-small.en cue 22 | liking the task | Checked expression of liking the activity in context | Machine candidate; wording check pending |
| A-tiny.en cue 20 / B-small.en cue 20 | finding the task manageable | Checked meaning of the complete statement, retaining its negation | Machine candidate; wording check pending |
| A-tiny.en cues 18 and 19 / B-small.en cues 18 and 19 | task necessity, if supported after review | Checked statement treated as an identified passage, not a row count | Wording and segmentation review pending |

Provisional claim to examine: work was only a necessity.

Complicating material: both machine versions also return a liking statement. Do not omit it to make the exclusive claim fit.

Current editorial decision: do not accept the exclusive claim from this record. Preserve the candidates for source checking; no final theme assigned.

Reason: original wording is unverified, the wider exchange matters, and different recognitions of the same recording do not supply independent interview evidence.

Final theme:

Independent wording reviewer and reference:

Analytical rationale after review:

Study-level supporting and complicating passages:

Transcript amendment/version:

Keep these fields empty until supported. The template does not establish saturation, coder agreement or a group-level pattern.