Foxe relied entirely on the first informant's account for Ridley's interview with Weston on 14 April (see textual variant 41). The first informant's account was far more detailed about this exchange and, in particular, did justice to Ridley's acerbic wit in answering Weston.

For the account of Latimer's interview with Weston on 14 April, Foxe interwove elements from the accounts of both informants. The vivid description of Latimer's appearance was taken from the second informant (textual transposition 11), while the equivalent passages in the first account, which described Latimer as feeble, aged and speaking in a low voice, were omitted (textual variant 42). Foxe then added a phrase, in neither informant's account, to the 1570 edition, making it clear that Latimer denied the three articles which were to be disputed (textual variant 43). Foxe then briefly followed the second informant's account of Latimer's interview (textual transposition 12) - this was in order to quote a sarcastic remark Latimer made to Weston - before returning to the first account (textual variant 43). (At this point, the two informants' accounts are admittedly almost identical; the belief that Foxe was following the first account is largely derived from textual variant 44. Foxe returned to the second informant's account for the conclusion of Latimer's interview (see textual transposition 13 and textual variant 45). Foxe also added a sentence, in the 1570 edition, clarifying the date (textual variant 46).

Foxe returned to the second account for the events of 15 April and the morning of 16 April (see textual transposition 14 and textual transposition 15), making two deletions from this account. The first (textual variant 47), seems to have been made to conceal the fact that the catholic disputants in the debate listened to the Bible being read to them during dinner; the second (textual variant 48), probably to eliminate what even Foxe considered to be irrelevant detail. Much of the remaining relatively short narration of the Oxford disputation in the first informant's account was omitted (textual variant 49), as Foxe had, even in the edition of 1563, much more detailed accounts of the remaining disputations.

This section is fairly representative of the rest of the disputations in its marginalia. Many of the glosses mark points of conflict and arguments, often with forms of textual privileging present in the 1563 edition which later became glosses (e.g. 'The contents of Cranmers explication geuen vp in writing', 'Argument', 'Aunswere', and 'D. Smith purposing to write for the mariage of Priestes'). From 1570 onwards 'Articles' appears in the margin in several places, with the numbers of the articles incorporated in the text; in 1563 the numbers are in the margin. The later method offers a clearer guide for a reader seeking the scholastic bones of the debate.

All texts use alternative fonts for the articles ('Articles', '1', and 'Argument'). In several places the editions from 1570 onwards use glosses where the 1563 edition indents the corresponding piece of text (e.g. 'How Christ is really present'; 'Argument') or uses a different font (e.g. '1. Cor. 11'; 'Iohn. 1.'). The glosses provide more explicit signposting.

Logical points and objections to Cranmer's interlocutors abound (e.g. 'D. Westons argument denyed: we eate the true body of Christ: Ergo we eate it with our mouth' and the next gloss, 'An other false argumēt wherein the 3. figure the Minor is a negatiue', 'The argument of Chedsey is not formall', and '* The forme of this argument which he repeateth, stood better before: for the fourme of this connexion answereth to none of the three figures of Sillogismes'), including one gloss which implicitly criticizes Cranmer himself for missing a logical error of his opponent ('Doct. Cranmer might haue foūd fault with this argument as well as with his latin being made in no moode or figure'). There are also several definitions of school terms present in all editions (e.g. 'Organicall is called that which is a perfect body, hauing all the members and partes complete belonging vnto the same' and 'Disparata, is a Schoole terme, meaning diuers substances being so sondred in nature, that one can neuer be sayd to be the other'). Along with logical points there are some (though fewer) grammatical criticisms of the interlocutors ('D. Weston speaketh truer then he wisse', 'D. Oglethorp breaketh Priscians head & speaketh false latin'). Perhaps to be linked to these are glosses which emphasize the rhetorical and figurative nature of scriptural discourse ('How the doctours doe take the speach of Christ. Tropical. Figuratiue. Anagogicall. Allegoricall', 'Tropes may be vsed in mens testaments, why not?'): on one level, these simply show the greater intellectual sophistication of Cranmer and his brand of humanist analysis, but at another level they also connect with the central matter at hand: the sacrament, and what is meant by the real presence. Many of the glosses are concerned with this issue. While Cranmer seems to have been paying close attention to the specific questions of scriptural and patristic interpretation under discussion, Foxe's glosses often lead things back to a wider perspective and the fundamental opposition between protestant and catholic views of the sacrament.

Foxe distinguishes the protestant emphasis on the mystery of the sacrament and its proper reception ('What is meant by eating the misticall bread') from the more grossly physical catholic version: hence his gloss in response to Weston's point that we receive Christ's body by the mouth, 'A grosse saying'; see also 'The argument of Chedsey is not formall' 'God cannot be touched'). Two lengthy glosses are concerned with what 'naturally' might have to do with all this. The first ('* The Papistes by this one word [naturally] confound themselues ... Wherefore it remayneth that the naturall vniting to Christes body commeth not by the bodely eating of the Sacrament vnto our body, but to our soule, & so shall redounde at length vnto our bodyes') again criticises the papists for imagining that we eat Christ's body in a physical sense in the sacrament, as this would imply that perfection was conveyed to our sinful selves in the sacrament (which helps to show a connection between sacramental theology and the question of justification), while the second ('* Christ not after his manhod but after his diuine nature liueth naturally by his father ... and so onely the bodyes of the faythfull doe lyue by eating the bodye of Christe naturally, in particypatyng the naturall propertyes of the bodye of Christe') makes the point that only the faithful live by the sacrament, rather than anyone who receives it: a pastoral distinction of fundamental significance. The distinction created between a protestant reliance on faith and a spiritual understanding of the sacrament and a debased, gross catholic eating obviously has a polemical utility and should be connected to the many logical objections to papist arguments as part of a concerted effort to show the Romish rule of appetite over reason. Along with these insinuations, there are some more direct attacks in the margins as in the glosses 'Westō falsifieth the wordes of Chrysostome' and 'Vnreuerend wordes vsed in the Schoole agaynst Doctor Cranmer'. Several glosses show the relative failings of the 1583 edition in the accuracy of its references and the positioning of its glosses ('Easy. 53' and two glosses following, 'Heb. 9', 'Heb. 17', '* Alloiosis rerū & symbolorū').