MDPE.20:4.2 - Multidance switching: separated styles, blending, loss, or context-bound expression

A school observes that some partner dancers switch cleanly between Tango, Kizomba, and Urban Kiz while others blend the available repertoire or cannot intentionally transfer one coordination into another style. The school wants to change its next term, but one observation supports several trajectories.

Serious rivals include:

• capabilities for the styles remain available but latent-context inference gates their expression, so earlier repertoire returns under earlier cues;
• a target coordination was never developed robustly enough, so changed context exposes a capability limit rather than retrieval;
• music, partner, cue, or transition history creates interference;
• dancers deliberately develop a hybrid practice that receiving partners and events may recognize or reject; and
• teaching and event arrangements select clean switching, blending, or dominance of one branch over time.

The COIN model supplies one testable explanation for contextual expression and updating of several human sensorimotor memories. Keep capability, interference, deliberate hybridization and scene-level selection as relevant rivals. An individual A → B → A or cue/order probe through MDPE.10, and later partner, teaching or event observations, are selected only when their contribution and full burden warrant the obtainable Work. Existing qualified evidence can already support a bounded teaching decision. A stronger scene-level forecast retains its population and transfer requirements; neither a recovered movement nor a COIN label supplies them.

Different results justify different Work: vary context and transfer practice, repair missing capability, change partner cues, preserve deliberate hybrid branches, or change the event and teaching arrangement. One dancer’s recovered movement does not establish a population trajectory.