Board Thread:Inclusion debates/@comment-1272640-20161223201024/@comment-1789834-20170125232924

I just want to know one thing and one thing only, and in my opinion, this all pivots on it. Everyone put their opinions to one side and look at this factually. Does what Paul Cornell say satisfy "authorial intent". If not, explain why not. If yes, explain why yes. Because up until now, I've been told that authorial intent is less to do with writer of the story and more to do with publisher/producer (i.e. the BBC, BBC Books). However, today I was made aware that this decision was overruled in a debate regarding Vienna, in which the writer of the series contradicted Big Finish and stated it "was its own thing" rather than an official spin-off.

So... authorial intent satisfied or not? Because I'm confused.