In what ways is the description of the implementing of the second sign different from the first?

For the implementing of the first sign, the description was brief: And it was so. Now it is said, And God did so that night. Regarding the first sign, the sight of it is described from Gideon’s point of view: he saw it in the morning. The second sign, however, is narrated from the narrator’s point of view: It was dry on the fleece only, and on all the ground there was dew. Why the change in point of view? Assis explains:

Through this changed perspective, Gideon’s scepticism is shown, even after carrying out of the first sign as he had requested. In the first sign it is said And that is what happened…without expressly determining that God generated the sign as is explicit in the second sign: God did so that night…. In addition to this difference, the first sign is related from Gideon’s point of view and the second from the narrator’s. The description from Gideon’s point of view does not relate what he saw but what his practical reaction was: he squeezed the fleece and wrung out the dew from the fleece, a bowlful of water. Thus Gideon is shown as sceptical even after the first sign. On the other hand, the second sign is related from the narrator’s point of view, and the determination is that it was God who generated the sign, and that it happened exactly as Gideon had expected…. Presentation of the second sign from the narrator’s point of view leaves the reader in doubt as to the way in which Gideon ultimately receives the second sign, whether his doubts have been removed or not.¹