MDPE.12:6 - Sources and Epistemic Boundaries

Source or maintained result	Contribution used here	Boundary
FPF `A.10`, `C.17`, `C.29`, `C.36`	Evidence grounding, characteristic claims, representation lenses, and cultural-evolution distinctions.	They do not select Music or Dance subjects, observers, representations, or direct observation Methods.
Comparative musicology, Global Jukebox, and rhythm-aware melodic alignment, discussed in the Preface	Listening, notation, acoustic, coded, macro-feature, and rhythm-aware comparisons.	Corpus and alignment results do not decide artistic value, investment, recognition, or current performance fit.
Whitehead et al., spontaneous Dance interactivity, discussed in the Preface	Kinematic analysis, coding and experienced participants’ interpretations in one bounded study; §4.2 distinguishes the observation families a current question can require.	No one Method establishes audience recognition, cultural selection, or long history.
Timing examples in the Dance profile and the local Balboa cases	Distinctions among contact, onset, weight arrival, perceived rhythmic position, partner-readable pressure, and useful representations.	A design and observation basis, not evidence of universal improvement or transfer.
Kloosterman and van Kempen, NDT production case, Shimon project, and the Drumming Arm study; see §§4.5–4.6	Creator reports, participant responses, critic judgements, process judgements, performance evidence, and later decisions remain separate.	No single case establishes whole-field prevalence, superiority, retention, or causal intervention effect.

When literature or measurement is not readily available, retain a labelled expert estimate and its update condition instead of inventing a source or blocking every bounded action.