—it is on account of the uncertainty (1) felt by the evaluator regarding the narrator: have all the conditions of soundness truly converged in him, or does he fall short (2) of them?
This applies when he alone (3) transmits that particular report.
From this the reply becomes clear to anyone who objected to combining the two descriptions and said (4), “The ḥasan grade is inferior to the ṣaḥīḥ (5); therefore joining the two labels both affirms (6) that inferiority and denies it!”
The essence of the answer (7) is that the hesitation of the ḥadīth masters (8) about the narrator’s status obliged the later scholar not to limit himself to a single verdict. Hence, concerning that report (9) one says: “ḥasan” in view of the ruling of one group, and “ṣaḥīḥ” in view of the ruling of another.
In the end, all that has occurred is the omission of the particle indicating hesitation, for, strictly speaking, he should have said “ḥasan or ṣaḥīḥ.” This is just like omitting the coordinating particle in the phrase that follows it (10).