In advanced English morphosyntax and indirect speech (narration) transformations, converting direct discourse involving complex illocutionary acts, mixed interrogatives, subjunctive moods, and temporal-spatial deictic anchoring requires rigorous structural precision. Consider the following four advanced propositions regarding direct and indirect speech: I. When converting a direct speech sentence that combines an imperative command and an interrogative question addressed to the same interlocutor (e.g., The supervisor demanded of the technician, 'Calibrate the spectrometer immediately! Why did you omit the baseline check?'), standard indirect syntax requires splitting the reporting structure into two coordinate or adjunct clauses utilizing distinct illocutionary matrix verbs, yielding: *The supervisor demanded that the technician calibrate the spectrometer immediately and inquired why he had omitted the baseline check.* II. When direct speech contains an exclamatory sentence expressing emotional intensity or sudden realization without a finite verb (e.g., The lead scientist exclaimed, 'What a catastrophic design flaw!'), indirect conversion mandates transforming the exclamation into a declarative reporting clause governed by an emotive matrix verb such as 'exclaimed with dismay' or 'remarked', followed by a complementizer clause where the nominal phrase integrates a copular verb, yielding: *The lead scientist exclaimed with dismay that it was a catastrophic design flaw.* III. When converting direct speech containing a second-person vocative addressing the listener directly (e.g., The defense counsel stated, 'Members of the jury, the evidence is entirely circumstantial'), standard reporting rules require shifting the vocative out of the embedded proposition and transforming it into the nominal object of the reporting verb, yielding: *The defense counsel addressed the members of the jury, stating that the evidence was entirely circumstantial.* IV. When a direct speech utterance features a counterfactual conditional clause expressing an unreal past hypothesis (e.g., The CEO noted, 'If the merger had succeeded last quarter, our market share would have doubled'), backshifting rules require shifting the past perfect subjunctive in the protasis into a past perfect continuous tense, while the modal apodosis transforms 'would have doubled' into 'would had have doubled'. Identify the option that correctly evaluates the grammatical, syntactic, and semantic validity of propositions I, II, III, and IV according to standard English grammar and Indirect speech principles.