Empirical coverage check — work-costs argument is well-supported

Ieva worried that ch. 5 (“What does it require?”) might lack empirical material to support a critical version of the work-costs argument (the unevenness/invisibility of consumption work). A pass through the drafted paragraphs in the thinner sub-sections shows the worry was unfounded — paragraph counts were misleading; quality of drafted material is high.

Strongest evidence for the critical version (uneven, invisible, displaced labour):

LĪGA #EU3EU3 is the load-bearing case:

• 30 trips quote #L3R6NF

• explicit comparison to clearance firm — informant herself articulates the displacement of labour #RP9HZL

• “iekšējā sajūta neļauj” / inner sense #ESUEL2 framed via Schatzki’s practical normativity #W7S3GS

• Ieva’s own analytic line: “most extreme example of consumption work as self-imposed labor burden” #M4VY96

CURATION #537BZZ — short but sharp:

• “Tas filtrs man ir” #5A5K3L

• Ieva’s gloss already states the invisibility claim: “valuable labor that the freeshop depends on but that visitors never see” #WVK5LA

EMOTIONAL LABOUR #YSK2AB — 3 paragraphs, strong material:

• Alise on volunteers having to recalibrate motivation #CNU7RP — textbook emotional labour

• “pearls before swines” framing #UJLH87

RESCUE WORK #G3SV7U — 1 vignette but self-contained: Ita and the wedding dress on the tyres #FCMSYL

HOUSEHOLD #3AYA88 — gendered distribution: Jana, “Es esmu tas, kas apgādā visus ar drēbēm un apaviem” #NBQV56

Implication for thesis structure: Ieva can confidently run the combined argument (sustainability is one reward among several, ch. 4; the practice depends on uneven, mostly invisible consumption work, ch. 5), with Līga as the central case for unevenness. Several short sub-sections need expansion into prose but the evidence base is there — no new fieldwork required.