MDPE.19:3.2 - Describe the current continuation arrangement
Recover only the contributors and relations that could change the promise. Useful questions include:
| Concern | Ask about the actual case |
|---|---|
| Enactment | Which performing Agent performs the representative Work, and which Method does that Work enact? |
| Performing whole | Which bodies, partners, instruments, software, controllers, spaces, or other Systems must be configured with the Agent? |
| Capability | Who can perform, teach, organize, maintain, recognize, or correct the practice under the stated conditions? |
| Memory | Which recordings, notation, tutorials, oral histories, model files, or other epistemes can support another occurrence, and what do they omit? |
| Provision | Which Agents provide teaching, rehearsal, venue, event, maintenance, access, or technical support? |
| Recognition and selection | Which audience, teacher, curator, competition, platform, or practitioner population can recognize the relevant differences, and which choices affect later opportunities? |
| Authority | Who may change the class, repertoire, event, support service, publication, or technical configuration? |
Do not call every item a carrier. State the relation: a teacher develops capability; a score describes material; a venue enables an event; a maintainer keeps an instrument usable; an organizer schedules Work; an audience or jury recognizes a difference; a performing Agent performs Work, and that Work enacts a Method.
Mark a continuation-critical relation when losing or changing it could defeat the stated promise. The first useful result can be as small as “the practice currently depends on one Agent who both teaches the Method and organizes the only recurring event; neither contribution has a tested replacement.”