In the review of a Sudden Passion case, is all evidence of former provocation immaterial?

Trial transcript shows evidence was removed from the scene by the accusers of the defendant. Previous Court of Appeals have decided that packing tape is a deadly weapon. Was the divide and conquer approach used, a legally sufficient guidepost into the analysis of a self-defense case?

Was the legal standard correctly applied in the analysis of this sudden passion case?

Whether evidence of former provocation is material in a Sudden Passion case and whether the legal standard was correctly applied in the analysis of self-defense