The last two paragraphs of Ch. 6: Appendix are as follows:
(The formatting is lost and the footnotes are not provided here.)

***
　　One might point out that not being able to obtain a confirmed predicted schematic asymmetry in EPSA [31]-3 (=[31]-10), or even in its improved version, might not be particularly surprising if the contrast between (78a) and (78b) is due to factors outside the CS, as Chomsky (2012: 37) suggests; see also Ludlow 2011: Appendix: 187. According to the proposed methodology for language faculty science, informant judgments constituting a confirmed predicted schematic asymmetry is a necessary condition for the relevant informant judgments to be regarded as a reflection of properties of the CS. As long as informant judgments continue to fail to form a confirmed predicted schematic asymmetry in EPSA [31]-3 (=[31]-10) (or its improved version), with improved informant classification, the relevant informant judgments cannot be taken as a reflection of properties of the CS; see section 4.3 for informant judgments forming a confirmed predicted schematic asymmetry in EPSA [31]-11.
　　My own position at this point is this: anaphora (such as BVA(A, B) (and scope dependency as well) can be an effective probe into properties of the CS although much more rigorous and careful work has to be carried out than we typically see practiced in the field, in order to obtain experimental results in accordance with our definite and categorical predictions. The relevant work would involve an articulation of how our definite and categorical predictions are deduced, how our experiment is designed and how our experimental results are interpreted accordingly. It is only through such rigorous and careful research we will be able to determine whether something that seems to involve non-local relations is indeed part of the language faculty and/or how it can be revealing about properties of the language faculty.