What the record shows
There is a discipline in saying only what the record shows. The discipline is harder than it sounds. The record is always partial, always shaped by the conditions of its production, always sitting in some particular relationship to the broader truth one is trying to reach. Reading it well requires staying close to what it actually contains while keeping in view what it does not.
This Commentary is a note on that discipline — what it permits, what it requires, and the temptations that pull careful work toward easier conclusions.
Three temptations
The first is the temptation of completion: filling gaps with inference and presenting the result as the record itself. The second is the temptation of consistency: forcing the record into a single narrative when its actual texture is uneven, contradictory, or incomplete. The third is the temptation of significance: reading more into what the record shows than the record can warrant.
The discipline
The discipline is not abstinence from interpretation — interpretation is unavoidable. The discipline is naming the interpretive moves, distinguishing them from the record itself, and leaving the reader equipped to disagree.