MDPE.10:6 - Sources and Epistemic Boundaries

Capability development connects learning support, practice and transfer. Assess what the performer can do in the intended later Work and which conditions the assessment covers.

Source or maintained result	Contribution used here	Boundary
FPF `E.23.CDI` and `A.2.2`	General holder–Work–limitation–intervention–transfer Method and holder-dependent capability identity.	They do not supply Music-or-Dance material, body, rhythm, instrument, partner, ensemble, context, or performance filling.
Timing examples in the Dance profile and the local Balboa cases	Layered timing, contact, weight, partner feedback, and variation for Dance capability design.	Method-design input only; no named-holder capability or mandatory lesson order.
Heald, Lengyel, and Wolpert, COIN sensorimotor model	Separation of motor-memory creation or updating from context-dependent expression; graded mixtures under inferred context.	Tested in human sensorimotor adaptation; other performance and learning uses remain hypotheses requiring discriminating probes.
Heald, Lengyel, and Wolpert, Contextual inference in learning and memory	Context dependence across conditioning, episodic memory, economic decision-making, and motor learning motivates cross-domain tests.	It does not establish one COIN computation for every memory, reasoning task, or learner.
Ogasa et al., decision uncertainty as a context for motor memory	Internal decision conditions can contribute to context-dependent expression.	One motor-adaptation factor does not reveal a learner’s unrestricted context categories.
Kumar et al., contextual cues and transition statistics	Cue availability, recency, transition history, blocked and interleaved schedules, and competing motor-memory expression.	Six visuomotor experiments do not establish one optimal schedule for every learner, Music or Dance task, or non-motor domain.
Reybrouck and Schiavio, Music performance as knowledge acquisition; Hohagen and Immerz, focus of attention review; Moura et al., solo assessment criteria	Coupled bodily, auditory, visual, instrumental, attentional, technical, interpretive, expressive, rhythmic, and instrument-specific pressures.	These sources do not supply one universal cue, rubric, or capability-development Method.
Fitch and Barnstaple, Dance as mindful movement; Silang, Zhou, and Gao, Dance pedagogy review	Automatized subskills, deliberate attention, demonstration, correction, exploration, reflection, dialog, feedback, and choice as candidate components.	The sources do not establish one definition of Dance, lesson order, or universally superior pedagogy.
Georgia Tech Shimon project, 2017 account, actuator study, and gesture study	Robot-holder capability, generation/control/actuation separation, bounded performance evidence, and separate human development decisions.	Results remain configuration-, material-, measure-, and condition-bounded.
Georgia Tech Barnes prosthesis account, finger-control account, and Drumming Arm study	Person, device, combined-configuration, engineering, co-adaptation, and performance distinctions.	One performer and device lineage does not supply a universal prosthesis or teaching Method.
Yamamura et al., JIZAI ARMS	Equipped-body configuration, co-design, embodied observations, and open questions.	Physical possibility and prototype interaction do not establish Dance capability or transfer.

Reconsider the capability-development Method when a direct field Method supplies the same transfer result with less burden, a changed performer, partner, instrument or controller configuration requires different practice conditions or a different transfer test, or observations contradict a relied-on transfer hypothesis.