Feedback narrows the problem only so far
Somatry tells you how many report answers are right, not which ones. A count therefore does not identify a particular field as correct. Avoid locking an answer solely because it felt strongest before submission. Return to the support for each field and distinguish a well-evidenced conclusion from one that merely received your most confident wording.
Worked example: two strong impressions
Suppose both a motive and a time seemed compelling, but each relied on an ambiguous message. Treat them as separately uncertain even if your feedback indicates some answers are correct. The message's wording may support one interpretation and undermine another. Rechecking the source can improve the theory more than swapping unrelated answers in the hope that the count rises.
Choose a reasoned revision
Start with the field whose evidence has the clearest unresolved assumption. Identify a competing answer and the record that would favor it. Change the report when the comparison justifies a change, keeping the four fields consistent with one another. This guide does not supply any case solution. Its aim is to make feedback send you back into the written evidence with a sharper question, rather than turning a fair mystery into a sequence of unexplained guesses.