IJ study archive

The ending was always the ending; the missing year was never drafted

theory

verdict: strongly-supported

both legs carried by independent, convergent record anchors; the scenes-vs-sketches boundary is stated in the verdict's scope rather than eroding it. Not a settled-tier analogue: a negative existential over a partially-traversed archive cannot settle.

Where readers stand

consensus

consensus (witness tier) — the upstream ammunition for 1.2.

In plain terms: the ending was always the ending, and the missing year was never actually drafted as scenes.

Where the text lands: a question about how the book was made rather than what the text says; on the documentary record it is strongly supported. Among readers: agreed among the people who saw the drafts -- this is the evidence the anti-closure reading draws on.

The ending's stability from the 1993 manuscript through the editing war is the best-attested fact in the composition record, and a firsthand witness reports that no missing-year scenes ever existed. The one boundary is a set of manuscript outline notes that name a few missing-year events; because those were contemplated and then never drafted across several more years, the archive reads them as withholding-by-choice rather than proof the year was written. Drawn from the composition tested reading; the reader-facing debate lives in The Ending: State of the Debate.

The ruling

Weighed in the adversarial ledger The Book's Composition.