Haesslich said:We know there are three Concordias - fact.
We know when three of them began operation: 2633, 2645, 2661 - fact.
We know when two of them died: 2634 for the first Concordia seen in the books, 2669 in WC3. The second one was either killed or decomissioned before 2661, to allow the one destroyed in 2669 to be comissioned with the name - fact.
We know that it takes five years to build a carrier, from End Run - fact.
We also have transfer docs from the Kilrathi Saga manual for around 2656 in the KS manual - fact.
Given that we know there's a Concordia which was built in 2645 and was active in 2654, and that another Concordia was comissioned in 2661... that Concordia has at least 11 years to be active in. It's a conjecture that the one we see in the docs for Kilrathi Saga is the same Concordia that was in the movie, but it's a strong one which is backed up by the above facts to a decent extent. If they built another Concordia-class supercruiser, it would take years to construct, and if they built another carrier, that would take almost as long to build (assuming they started a new contract for it) as it would to get the Confederation-class dreadnought into service. There's no reason to assume that it's not the movie Concordia in this case, unless you're stating that this was referring to a Concordia Base somewhere.
We've got a simple interpretation and a hard one. Personally, I'll go for the one which requires the fewest extra factors to work.
I agree its the best interpretation, but if stated in a formal context it needs to be supported by the evidence it is derived from. And when not in a formal context, as a good practice, I would asterisk it and then note that the asterisk means speculatively. For instance, you used even more speculation in your evidence. To my knowledge, we know there at AT LEAST three Concordia's, not that there were only three. Additionally, on several levels I would question the 5 years to build a carrier statement. First of all, you assume that any interim Concordia would be another carrier, this need not be true. Secondly, and I really can't get into any debate about this at this time cause I don't have access to my books right now and as a result I will be grossly ignorant on this point, I would question the assertion that it always takes 5 years to build a carrier. I really wish I had the quote from End Run establishing this, but is it true of all time periods and all classes of carriers or just a single class of the present day in End Run? It seems quite silly to me that the prototype of a class would take the same as the production run of the class, that production times wouldn't be reduced as workers became more adept, that changes in technology used in a class and used in the production of the class wouldn't cause any fluctuation in production times. And, if this is a blanket statement for all carriers, it just seems silly that no matter the size of the class of carrier or complexity of the technology that production time would be the same. Now, of course silliness wouldn't prevent something from being canon if it is indeed stated, its just a matter of how far reaching the statement from End Run is. For all I know, it says all TCN carrier production has always taken exactly 5 years.
Once again, I agree with the interpretation. My only points are that a) it is indeed an interpretation and b) that I am very anal and would like interpretations noted so I don't get confused between what is known and what people think they know due to interpretation.