The theory does not require that there be a single correct interpretation of the essential hilarity of a funny situation or joke. There may in fact be a number of violations in the situation, and a number of possible interpretations of the situation as normal. People indeed laugh at multiple elements of complex humorous situations, and different people may see different aspects of the same situation as funny. As one uncovers the different N and V elements in a situation, one may laugh more and more.6
Some may view this ambiguity as a weakness of this theory, under the assumption that there is a single ``correct interpretation'' of any given joke. But this assumption is itself unnecessary. There is no reason to assume -- and this theory does not -- that a humorous situation must have but one ``proper'' interpretation. In another equally reasonable interpretation, it may be entirely lacking in humor, or it may contain a different humorous interpretation. Different perceivers could certainly construct N and V views from different elements of the same situation, if the situation can be seen as containing those elements. So it is incorrect to point to one V view and one N view and consider that one is necessarily done with the interpretation of humor in a situation.
So the question, Which violation is the right one? is a false question, because there may be many. Only for a given perceiver at a given instant does the theory claim that some definite and particular pair of N and V views constitute the correct set of actual psychological conditions that generate an instance of perceived humor. A self-observant laugher may be able to explicate N and V in a given case more accurately than an uncomprehending observer. The particular pair of views whose perception led to a particular chuckle may not be reconstructable for an outside observer, especially if there are elements in the situation allowing multiple N and V interpretations. (However, if the added intricacies are revealed by way of a sequence of humorous events, then the emotional significance of the individual events can explored in context to develop a quite rich understanding of the process of a cascading laughter sequence). Imperfect reconstructibility doesn't mean that the theory says nothing, it only means that the theory does not force the humor analyst to choose among the different possible N and V views as being the ``correct'' ones. To summarize, there may be only one possible N and V pair in the situation, or any number, in which case humor can be perceived using that one, or any combination. The theory restricts the possible interpretations to these; it does not leave the door open to everything.