I believe the question is asking had the analyst not reversed the write-down, during 2015 the intangible assets were understated, which would have understated amortization expense for the year and increased profit resulting in overstated 2015 net profit margin.
“actual economic results in 2015” - I assumed this was the company’s official fin. statements, i.e. where the impairment was written down hence the depreciation is lower the NI is higher in 2015
“her original 2015 analysis” - should be the other scenario,where the impairment should have not happened (based on the analyst’s view) so here the NI should be lower in 2015
2nd scenario is compared to the first (her analysis compared to actual results) and her analysis results in lower NI.
_ I agree the word ‘original’ might be the clue here but for me this is such a complicated way of expressing something… _