I disagree with that convention, mostly because it ends up making duplication but I think I'm just frustrated with the fact that provides methods themselves duplicate the semantic content of the signature in the name.  

But I'm not so opposed to it that I'll fight it.  I just dislike it quite a bit.  But I'll fix this to conform so at least there's a not-incorrect pattern.  I was using non-provides language to make it clear that the method name is irrelevant.  

Hmmm.   maybe I should say

```
@Provides A irrelevantMethodNameA() { return a; }
```

;)