>First fermentation - 1 1/2 hours.
>second - 2 hours
>third - 2 hours.
>At cool room temperature.

Is this just bulk or total fermentation including proofing...?

I was interpreting your recipe as bulk fermentation 1-1/2 to 2 hours
then knock down knead briskly and let rest for few minutes. The time
involved after the initial fermentation plus hand in kneading and
intermittent rest is roughly an hour maximum. So I estimated it to be
3 hours. Then you said its was more than 5 hours how could it be....
Its either the proofing takes 2 hours. or more..
How long is the proofing time...or can you describe the fermentation
and proofing duration?

There is a difference between true fermentation ( which is occurs when
the dough is mixed and right after the dough is loaded in the oven
before the yeast is inactivated by heat) and bakers fermentation, in
which the latter many bakers consider it more as bulk fermentation
and does not include the proofing stage.
I was thinking along the line of true fermentation in your case...
So what is the real score...? is the total fermentation time includes
the bulk, including knockdown the intermediate and final proof?

Because if you say so I still cannot believe that you can extract good
bread flavor from that....
Unless the fermentation was really long enough and not what I expected
earlier.

> confess that I prefer a Parisian-style bread over the more artisanal
>or rustic loaves. Living in Paris and then Brussels probably prejudiced
>me in that regard.

That answers the question that Old French baker I mentioned above that
he lamented that his countrymen does not know anymore what real bread
is.....
I told him all of those bread are real.....he frowned on me. And
said...It is just that modern people specially the younger generation
(like me) does not care about good bread anymore.....I insisted to him
all of these bread are good...!
Maybe for you ...as you have never undergone my training.....but for me
....
No.....if you only think how we are trained differently in the past and
how we are taught to assess regularly the quality of bread we made ;
and sometimes our mentors visited our workplace and assess our bread
and graded our skills if we have improved after the years we passed our
apprenticeships
..For every bread there is a criteria for quality such as in terms of
external and internal appearance, bloom, crust quality, flavor and
taste, keeping quality, etc to me modern French bread does not fit
that category but is as good as garbage.
People of my generation would not eat that kind of bread .
To prevent further argument with the old man ( he is nearly 80 years
old) I just smiled and keep silent in order to maintain our good
relationship...
Until he passed a few years later he never retracted his opinion that
modern bread is not good for eating....as it lacks substance...and
taste that he is used to.

Some years after..
When I browsed Raymond Calvels book , and found related ideas I
started to believe that the old French baker has a valid reason for
his statement....which is true if you have to look at the historical
side of French Breadmaking....and compare it to recent years...from the
artisanal point of view.

>I agree. But this isn't classical French bread.

That makes sense...