Right. It’s just that Dorico wants to mark bar 35 A3. You will have to manually hide the player marks here to get the same results., and that suggests that there’s a rule in play.
However, if we ignore the rests in between bar 34 and 35 in the horns because, if presumably, they have no effect on unison (no marking required in 35 of the horns…we’re still in unison), than why bother with it at the end of bar 34 of the flutes above as, again, presumably, it is still in unison there too?
See what I am getting at? The presence of a rest in Dorico apparently resets it’s requirement to display player markings for unison unless deliberately overridden (a rule? ).
If we use the Horns example as our guideline (assume rests have no effect on the need to re-indicate a unison) it then suggests that in the case of the Flutes, bar 34, the indication is not needed there as well (superfluous?) and yet, there it is with the flipped stems, indicating a unsion. Of course, Flutes bar 35 then divides, but I don’t where see there is a requirement that a preceding unison be marked as such (in light of it already being unison at that point in time), plus the divided voices that follow the unison are plainly and simply obvious (there’s more than one notehead…) .
However, if we have rule that player markings are required for a unison following a rest unless overridden or flipped stems (if just two voices) than Dorico makes perfect sense, yet the score disagrees.
I can’t help and wonder if Dorico’s behavior on requiring player markings following rests is simply following best practice with player markings (as any software developer would likely do), yet it’s still not a hard and fast rule and it’s still fungible area decision-wise, because the score seems to indicate so,
If it is a firm rule, then it would indicate a missed marking in the score for the Horns in bar 35. It happens. It is just that I do not know what the convention is or should be.
I agree that we all know composer’s intent (most important) but, well, I AM a software developer myself (retired) and I can’t help but notice the difference in logic here.