MDPE.17:4 - Worked Cases
MDPE.17:4.1 - A partner-Dance transmission trial
This constructed project example illustrates the returned result. Its class is illustrative, and population
effectiveness remains untested. A Tarraxo teacher must decide whether dancers P and Q can use a taught
partner-coordination Method in the next supervised social practice without continuous teacher cues. The receiving
use requires weight transfer, timing, partner-readable invitation and response, musical adaptation, and recovery
after an interrupted connection. It does not require a literal copy of the teacher’s phrase.
The source content is a current Tarraxo practitioner description, two exercises, and the teacher’s demonstration.
The teacher performs provider Work through the direct Tarraxo teaching Method. P and Q are the receiving
Agents. In the first two lessons they perform receiving Work as one pair while the teacher supplies continuous
timing and correction cues. The pair can repeat the shown phrase, but that observation supports only
teacher-assisted enactment with the original partner and music.
The receiving trial removes continuous cueing and uses three ninety-second dances: (1) the original P–Q
pair with an unheard track in the taught tempo range; (2) P with experienced changed partner R; and (3)
Q with another experienced changed partner S, with an unexpected pause and restart during the Q–S
dance. The teacher observes but does not cue.
P and Q preserve weight arrival, timing, and readable invitation and response across the changed music and
partner trials until the interruption in the Q–S dance. After that pause, Q restarts the memorized phrase
instead of first re-establishing partner information; S stops the attempt. Seven days later, the original P–Q
pair again performs Work that enacts the Method without reteaching under the changed-music condition.
The admitted receiving Method variant therefore preserves the timing, weight-transfer, and partner-dialogue
relations, allows a changed visible phrase, and transfers across the tested music and experienced-partner changes.
Retention is supported only for seven days with the original pair. Recovery after an interrupted connection
remains absent for Q with changed partner S; unfamiliar novice partners, a wider tempo range, and an
unsupervised party were not tested. The source content and provider Work were used. No source-specific comparison
was run, so their causal contribution is not tested rather than inferred from improvement.
The next transmission change is one exercise in stopping, re-sensing the partner, and rebuilding the invitation
before restarting. The next trial repeats the failed interruption condition for Q with two changed partners.
Reopen the result if that trial fails, if the intended social setting requires a wider partner or music range, or
if a later receiving observation crosses one of the stated transfer or retention limits. Source access,
phrase copying, one successful dance, and seven-day recurrence each support a narrower claim than the complete
receiving-Method result above.
MDPE.17:4.2 - Music: distinguish receiving performer Work from event-organizer Work
A live-coding performer studies Live Coding: A User’s Manual, examples, and tools. An organizing team separately uses the Algorave guidelines for programme, access, conduct, technological diversity, visible process, and community contact.
At one event, two receiving claims are possible:
- the performer changes code or an algorithmic process during a bounded Music performance under the selected live-coding Method; and
- the organizing team programs and runs the event under the selected event-programming Method.
One successful set does not establish that the organizing team can perform event-programming Work under the Method in changed conditions, and a well-run event does not establish performer capability. Test each through representative Work. For performer transfer, change a relevant musical material, tool, or venue condition. For organizer transfer, change a programme or access condition while preserving the community requirements. Record source use separately; the causal contribution of the manual and guidelines still needs its own evidence.
MDPE.17:4.3 - Robot or AI Agent: copied values are inputs, not transmission results
A team copies code, weights, movement data, or a control policy to another robot or AI system. The copied values configure the technical system. They do not establish that an Agent can perform the intended Music-or-Dance Work under a Method.
When the configured receiver has enough agency to act as the receiving Agent, test representative Work. Adapt source-removal, held-out-task, alternative-demonstration, and incorrect-demonstration probes when the direct machine-learning Method supports them. Bhoopchand and colleagues used such distinctions to separate following, within-episode recall, generalization, and source-specific information use. Their GoalCycle3D tasks and metric are not a universal Music-or-Dance test.
If the technical system merely produces output under another Agent’s control, name it as part of the performing whole.
MDPE.17:4.4 - Stop when source material does not yet yield a reusable Method
The Call provides a songbook, exercises, recordings, datasets, choral AI models, an installation, and governance experiments. These are valuable source materials and project results. The project page does not by itself supply one complete reusable Method for a later choir–model project.
Recover or select the needed candidate Method first through direct inquiry or A.3.1.MR/MDPE.18. Then use MDPE.17 only when a receiving choir, organizer, model-development team, or configured performing whole performs representative Work under an admitted receiving Method.