Pietsch's first response to MS-1993 independently surfaces the Hal-as-narrator reading…

This one was stable by design: a change was proposed, but the material survived unchanged, which is itself evidence.

In the published book. This concerns the book as a whole rather than a single scene. (narration)

Evidence. Independently corroborated. (two readers of the 1993 manuscript, independently; plus the same editor re-surfacing the unplaced "I" against MS-1994 in Dec 1994). Documented by D.T. Max's biography of Wallace (Pietsch 1993 letter); Steven Moore's first-draft collation (MS first-person "I"s); second, later Pietsch witness Michael Pietsch's December 1994 second-read letter: "1149 Matty Pemulis's story. It's hard to take in another new character so far in the book. Could this come sooner? Also, who's the I who speaks at the end?".

Bears on. This difference bears on the following open questions: narrator-proximity.

Further notes. Evidence that the narrator ambiguity predates the 1994 additions — it is not an artifact of late assembly. On the Dec-1994 witness, which "end" (most plausibly of the Matty Pemulis chapter, print scene 131 pp. 682–686) is ambiguous in the entry — do not over-assign.