In the example below, I would state the Conclusion just once, at the beginning. I pick the sentence under Section 5 because it's more detailed than the sentence under Section 1. I find the second conclusion in CREAC superfluous. Why not just do CREA?
Even if you need CREAC, and the second conclusion, to signal the reader that you're concluding, why not just write a curt sentence asking the reader to refer to the conclusion at the beginning ("Please refer to the beginning or page whatever)? Isn't it pointless and stupid to paraphrase your Introduction?
This chapter will explain one organizational paradigm, CREAC, and how it is used to express different forms of legal analysis, including analogical reasoning and rule-based reasoning. CREAC has five component parts, each building on the other. Each letter in CREAC represents a specific component part of the written expression of legal analysis: Conclusion, Rule, Explanation of the law, Application of the Law, and Conclusion. When drafted effectively, the parts combine in a cohesive, logical, and comprehensive expression of legal analysis. CREAC is a flexible paradigm that can be manipulated or translated to fit many different types of legal analyses or documents. The key is to understand how each component part of CREAC fits together.
Romantz. Legal Analysis: The Fundamental Skill (2009). p 120.