I was wondering the best way to handle this. If the arrows are to be shown mathematically, the matrix is too wide to fit. If the Row Operation shown is just an author's comment, then the arrow can be eliminated and the matrix will fit. If it is mathematical and the arrow should be there, then would it be better to leave a note about the arrow then eliminate it or to key the row operations that won't fit and have a keyed number followed by the arrow then matrix?
Keying is usually the last option to consider because it requires a lot of back-and-forth reading. I would not recommend keying here.
I believe the arrows are simply pointing to the row—they are not mathematical signs of comparison. So yes, this will fit as long as you begin in cell 1. Even though this is displayed material, by starting in cell 1 you will not need to rearrange the matrix. This is the preferred method.
In order to maintain the alignment of the math portion, comments are transcribed to the right of the labeled line. Explain what the print copy looks like in a transcriber’s note. Something like “Row operations (printed in blue) appear to the left of each labeled row. An arrow points from the label to the row. In braille, the row operations are transcribed to the right of each labeled row and the pointing arrow is omitted.”
Regarding the vertical dotted lines, the BANA Nemeth committee has decided to use the Nemeth vertical bar (preceded and followed by a space) to represent the vertical line in an augmented matrix. This will be explained in the not-yet-available new edition of the Nemeth code book, but there is no reason you cannot use it now as long as you identify it with a transcriber’s note.
I have attached my transcription of this problem. Please check for errors if you are going to be copying it.