AKs,UVs and Green Light, OH MY

[Mike]

No: HPFGUIDX 155240

> > > Pippin:
> > > There is no hypothesis about the operation of the UV that does
> > > not require assumptions, so I set that aside.
> > 
> > Neri:
> > Convenient, but not all assumptions were created equal. The most
> > straightforward assumption in the case of the UV is that Snape 
would
> > die if he doesn't keep his Vow to carry out Dumbledore's 
assassination
> > instead of Draco. I call it the most straightforward in the 
sense that
> > if JKR takes this route, she won't have to supply any further
> > explanations of this issue in Book 7. Any more complicated 
assumptions
> > require further elaboration of the UV mechanism, by both the 
theorist
> > and JKR herself. 
> 
> Pippin:
> She has to explain why Draco's failures with the necklace and the
> mead didn't trigger the UV. Any attempt by us to anticipate
> the explanation calls for an assumption about how it works.

Mike:
Did I miss something? Why would Draco's failure with the mead or 
necklace trigger a UV? Snape's UV was couched in a "should it prove 
necessary" and a "if it *seems* Draco will fail", but without a time 
frame. Obviously it hadn't proved necessary yet, and it did not yet 
*seem* for sure that Draco will ultimately fail, given that there 
are no time frame constraints.

He made the vow to Narcissa, he has to keep his word to her 
satisfaction. Does anyone really think these obscure, half-hearted, 
and feeble attempts by Draco, that neither Snape nor probably 
Narcissa know of in advance, would constitute Snape's failure to 
keep his word in Narcissa's eyes? Would she consider that Snape, not 
making these two virtually impossible-to-succeed plots work, has 
broken his vow?

Mike, thinking the vow is still in play and Narcissa was not 
disappointed with Snape's performance.