No I’m actually agreeing with you. I’m just stating it’s hard to tell exactly how much was achieved in b if we don’t know the starting point. How do we know that the patient even had a high angle to begin with? Again this is assuming a and b are different people.
Basically, I don't need to see 'a''s before to know that 'a' did NOT get CCW-r. All I need to see is that 'a' has NO APPEARANCE of having had CCW-r. Similarly, I don't need to see 'b's before either to see that 'b' DOES have appearance of CCW-r and of course, from the surgery. Hence, I don't need to 'know' because I can go through a process to assume it.
It's not too different a process of addressing one of your questions about what the woman in Mohaved surgery had. Like nobody told me what she had (doctor didn't list it). But I can go through of process to figure stuff out in the absence of some information as to make a good guess.
Here, I'm just trying to think in terms of what they, the writers, could be wanting to convey when they show those photos side by side (assuming the photos are of different people and from the same article). We have a clue that they want to convey something having to do with CCW rotation. We see that 'a' has NO appearance of a CCW-r (because the OP and MPA are steep). But 'b' has the appearance of CCW-r.
So, it is likely they are wanting to convey something DONE to 'b' to give appearance of CCW-r.
'b' has NO plates to the maxilla, so I'm assuming no CCW-r at the maxilla. That leaves only 2 things to give a CCW-r to the mandible a type of BSSO cut and also a type of extended genio that can give a CCW-r to the anterior mandible and the chin.
Therein comes the assumption that 'b' probably started with a high MPA even though before having the surgery.
Do you have another assumption as to what the authors could be wanting to convey by having those photos side by side?