PMS 1.1.5 strangely inserts the word bādarāyaṇasya ‘according to Bādarāyaṇa’ in its wording. Does it mean that this key sūtra of the school is only the opinion of Bādarāyaṇa? The context makes it clear that it is not a prima facie view and in the commentary on PMS 1.1.5, Veṅkaṭanātha uses the mention of Bādarāyaṇa to substantiate his idea of a unitary system of Pūrva Mīmāṃsā and Vedānta. He explains that Jaimini mentions Bādarāyaṇa in order to show that this view is traditional (sāmpradāyikatā) and accepted by his own teacher.
That Bādarāyaṇa was the teacher of Jaimini is proven by means of some Mahābhārata quotes, which should prove their connection, and also the identity of Bādarāyaṇa and Vyāsa.
Moreover, they show the following:

bādarāyaṇasya mīmāṃsāpradhānāṃśabhūtaśārīrakasūtrakṛtatvena nyāyasiddhārthe ‘nuvidheyavacanatvañ ca mahābhāratādiprasiddham.

That is:

It is also well known in the Mahābhārata and in other [works] that —insofar as Bādarāyaṇa authored the Śārīrakasūtra (i.e., the Vedāntasūtra or UMS), which is the main part of the (unitary) Mīmāṃsā [system]— [in these sūtras] he expresses [in the UMS] what has to be conformed to (anuvidheya) in regard to [each] content established through rules (nyāya) (in the PMS).

In other words, Bādarāyaṇa set the interpretive principles in the UMS. The interpretation of the PMS needs to follow them. nyāya should refer to the Mīmāṃsā rules. Yet, I am not sure of my translation nyāyasiddhārthe ‘nuvidheyavacanatvam. Do readers have any suggestion?