RHY.13:5 - Archetypal Grounding

These are constructed probes with stipulated outcomes, not empirical reports or standardized tests.

RHY.13:5.1 - A later success still uses the teacher’s reference

A learner performs a three-beat gesture cycle against a two-syllables-per-beat phrase with a teacher giving the beat. The intended later use permits the learner’s own gesture but has no teacher.

At the next lesson, the first familiar attempt with the teacher’s beat succeeds. In the following attempt without that external beat, the learner resets the gesture at the phrase boundary. The score and duration information remain available, so this contrast does not withhold a missing part of the phrase description.

The available conclusion is later successful performance with the reference, followed by a failed local independence probe. An unaided attempt before any post-interval supported rehearsal was not observed; the supported attempt came first. The teacher retains the successful supported use and selects practice of independent reference continuation. Calling the second failure “forgotten rhythm” would lose the actionable difference.

RHY.13:5.2 - Relative timing transfers to a changed beat period

A familiar four-unit phrase has attacks at units 0, 1 and 3. At a 0.5-second unit its attacks occur at 0, 0.5 and 1.5 seconds, returning to the cycle beginning at 2.

The next use has a 0.4-second unit and the same grouping and articulation. The target attacks are therefore 0, 0.4 and 1.2 seconds, with the cycle returning at 1.6. The learner understands the unchanged convention and can make the required familiar actions at that speed.

In the stipulated first changed-tempo attempt those relative positions and the continuation are preserved within the task’s accepted tolerance. The result supports this local tempo transfer. It does not yet show entry from another cycle position, a new bodily technique or responsive adjustment to a partner. If the receiving task only needed this tempo, further probes are unnecessary.

RHY.13:5.3 - Removing information is not a clean independence test

A learner has performed a sound lasting two beats followed by two silent beats from a duration-bearing prompt. A proposed “test without the score” supplies only attack syllables at the beginning of each four-beat cycle.

Two different tasks are possible. If the goal is to remember the earlier duration pattern, name that memory demand and inspect the unaided attempt. If the goal is to interpret the newly supplied string, the duration is underdetermined: an immediate release and a two-beat sustain fit the same attacks.

The teacher selects interpretation as the intended question and restores a timed demonstration or duration convention. The next attempt supplies the required sustain and silence. The corrected conclusion concerns performance from an adequate supported input; no duration-retrieval or forgetting result was obtained. This is the practical consequence of Cha’s Takadimi objection for test design.

RHY.13:5.4 - The new physical demand exceeds the equipped performer

A controller preserves a rhythm with attacks one, then two time units apart. Its reference configuration has a 0.5-second unit and an actuator that needs at least 0.45 seconds between the relevant actions.

A proposed 0.4-second unit preserves the abstract rhythm but requires a first action interval shorter than the actuator’s known bound. That information is already sufficient to reject this configuration for the changed-tempo use; repeated physical trials would not establish the missing capability.

Retain the feasible tempo, change the realization or obtain another actuator, then test the resulting arrangement if needed. The controller’s correct timing construction remains useful. What is unavailable is the combined rhythmic performance under the new physical demand, not an inferred human-style loss of memory.