What is present here in the question of choice of neurosis or in this word trauma is the incidence, which can be perfectly divergent, of the initial jouissance for one subject or another. The relationship of knowledge and jouissance is here in question, as the incidence of jouissance in and through the relationship in the place of the Other is articulated. This conforms to the end of the chapter, where it is a question of the union of the Other to jouissance, of which the first incidence is traumatism, which remains as the word for trauma in this text.
One sees then that Lacan critiques the analysts for looking for the determinant of the subjective position in trauma. Trauma is foremost and the subject is determined by it.

The rectification that Lacan proposes, which concerns the issue of an analytic cure, is this initial moment that is in fact retroactively isolated by the interpretation. One does not have an elementary chronology that follows the waning of time, but what is on the order of trauma is retroactively posed, and it is here as well that we can inscribe the sign, the symbol the object has in this retroversion. We have almost a contesting by Lacan of the primacy of trauma and of the idea of choice of neurosis as being a point of origin, which has been produced retroactively by interpretation, from which all the switching of tracks begins.