State the scope of the success
A probe that identifies an owned media file and its streams has completed an inspection task. It has not necessarily decoded every frame or checked the programme's ending. Preserve the exact invocation, tool version and output before describing its result.
FFprobe offers different report modes, including format, packet and frame information and bounded intervals. They have different coverage and cost. A short inspection is useful when labelled; its limit should not disappear when a report is summarised.
If the original complaint occurs forty minutes into the recording, a successful check of the opening cannot resolve it. Keep the symptom time and the required stream beside the inspection plan.
Choose the next relevant check
For a decoder complaint, review the affected passage and, where appropriate, a complete decode of the required streams using a documented workflow. For missing programme content, an editorial comparison is still needed. A decoder can accept a perfectly valid file that contains the wrong cut.
Use local authorised media and avoid overwriting the source during investigation. Record warnings and failures with their positions, distinguishing an observation from a guessed cause. If only part of the file was examined, preserve that boundary.
The handoff should say what was inspected, what decoded and what was heard or seen. Avoid a single verified label covering all three. That makes a later recovery or delivery decision assessable without repeating a header check that never reached the affected material.
Questions answered
Does successful metadata inspection prove every frame decodes?
No. Keep inspection and decoding scope explicit.
Can a clean decode prove the programme includes its promised ending?
No. Editorial completeness is a separate question.
Sources & further reading
Official references for the subjects discussed. Service terms and device software can change.