Gaius, consisting in a cumulative acceptance that included both the legal aspects concerning the transmission of the dotal assets and the religious ones inherent in the matrimonial cults and rites. F. Marco Simon and G. Fontana Elboj (autopsy) confirmed the interpretation of the previous proposals that see in the vase the symbol of a marriage compact. The authors ground their interpretation on the segment instead of . They therefore identified a root *o-it (composed by prefix *o and lexeme *i-, cf. Latin eo) related to classic Latin utor, and suffix -esios/a (cf. Valesios of the Lapis Satricanus and Leucesie of the carmen Saliare). The substantive oitesiai would be thus related to the semantic field of utor i.e. the concept of utilitas. Therefore, the text should be divided as: asted noisi; opet otesiai pakari vois. Opet would be an articulatory fusion between the dative opi and conjunction et. The whole text should thus be understood as: Ni erga te virgo comis sit, asted nobis; (iurat) opi et utilitati pangi vois, 'if the girl is not to your taste/agreeable to you, let her go back to us; (he swears) to give you guarantee about your disturb and your interest'. The segment oitesiai could be also understood as utensilium referred to the vase itself as a token of suretyship or usus in the technical legal sense of Roman marriage as a way of providing a guarantee. The last two hypotheses are, however, considered unacceptable by the authors on the grounds that no genitive marker is to be found in the segment oitesiai. The proposed interpretation would find support in its strict analogy with a passage of Terentius's Hecyra (vv. 136–151), in which a story similar to that supposedly recorded on the vase is described. The text would thus be the undertaking of an obligation concerning the eventuality that the girl go back to her family of origin, should she be not liked by the bridegroom (asted endo cosmis virco sied, asted noisi). Even after the last two contributions related above, Sacchi acknowledges that all attempts at interpreting the segment remain conjectural. Dumézil's hypothesis of a protoform of tutela, though attractive and plausible, remains unconfirmed. Juridical note on the matrimonial sponsio Although there are still obscure points in the interpretation of line two, it is generally accepted that the text contains the formula of an oath. On the archaic oath and its juridical value