KONDO_SCHOOL.md

music/KONDO_SCHOOL.md

THE KONDO SCHOOL — the Nintendo dialect, rule by rule

CANON SUBORDINATION — this document is PROPOSAL-TIER: it serves canon and never outranks it.
The canon: the CVD · the T1 foundation docs · the T0 registries (registries/) · the spine
(docs/spine/CH_*.md) · the region pages (_source/02_Tier_2_Region_Pages/). Authority order: docs/DOC_MAP.md § 0.
Canon served: NONE FOUND — this document cites no canon anchor anywhere in its body.
Do not build from it alone: open the spine node (docs/spine/CH_NN.md), the region page
(_source/02_Tier_2_Region_Pages/), and the T0 registry your work targets, and derive from those.
READ THAT CANON FIRST — open it and derive from it before you build anything from this document.
If this document disagrees with canon, CANON WINS and this document is the defect — fix the
document, never the canon. Nothing here is applied until it is ratified into canon.

The grammar of the exemplar class Josh named — Super Mario Bros., Super Mario 64, A Link to the Past, Ocarina of Time, Majora's Mask — stated as rules a composition can be checked against rather than as appreciation. It is the school that supplies the anti-fatigue law (never close the loop with a perfect authentic cadence), the four-step phrase model, and the four-mutually-unlike-motifs mechanism Kondo states in his own words.

---

0. Provenance — where this text came from, and what was done to it

T1/T0 canon outrank every line of it.

structured object with three keys — rules, evidence, measurable_features — and all three are

reproduced below.

written here unedited — not re-worded, not re-ordered, not summarised. Only the headings, the

bullet markers and this provenance section are new. That matters because NOSTALGIA_RUBRIC.md

cites these rules BY ID, and a citation that resolves to a paraphrase of its rule is the same

defect as one that resolves to nothing.

is not canon-readable. The rubric quoted them anyway and said the mechanism was "stated verbatim

from the school grammars" — which named documents that did not exist. That is finding F3 of the

cold verification of 2026-08-05, and this file is half of its fix (the other half is the rubric's own

provenance line).

carries the citations the research agent gave, with its own declared gaps and negative controls

left in. Verifier finding F4 stands open against this: several named scholarly sources are bare

author-year strings, and a reader cannot resolve them from this repo alone. Treat a citation here

as a pointer to check, never as a checked fact.

---

1. The rules

---

2. The evidence

---

3. The measurable features

Generated by harness/site/structure_site.py — the URL path is the repo path. review root