MDPE.9:6 - Sources and Epistemic Boundaries
| Source or maintained result | Contribution used here | Boundary |
|---|---|---|
FPF C.17, C.18, C.19, C.11, A.15.1, and A.3.1–A.3.2 | Difference characterization, archive and pool treatment, accountable choice, Work, Method, and MethodDescription distinctions. | They do not supply Music-or-Dance candidate kinds, direct creation Methods, performer trials, or domain dispositions. |
| Chédin et al., co-designing movement-generation models with Voguing and Dancehall dancers and repository copy | Model and interface variants, dancer improvisation, structured practitioner comparison, and return to model design. | The reported fidelity result is not a universal Dance rule or evidence for another population or use. |
| Reis et al., human–AI choreographic co-creation | Performer interpretation and adaptation remain part of choreographic Work with AI. | The study does not define one general choreography Method or establish cultural selection. |
| Ableton Live 12, Comping | A direct Music-production Method for retaining, auditioning, and combining takes. | Use it directly when it already returns the needed result. |
| Georgia Tech, Shimon composition and performance account | A bounded robotic generation-and-performance case and a counterexample to candidate-set and decision-holder overclaims. | It establishes neither several compared variants nor the robot’s authority over practice development. |
| Timing examples in the Dance profile and the local Balboa cases | Continuous carrier, discrete articulation, several event locations, and partner-readable candidate differences. | It is Method-design input, not a demonstrated capability result or universal teaching order. |
For a constraint-specification candidate, name participants, proposed relations, trial observations and the resulting disposition. Use a direct field Method when it supplies the same result with less burden. Reconsider a candidate when it no longer fits the stated receiving use and trial conditions.