Cultural Sovereignty

Cultural Sovereignty

Cultural sovereignty is a technical requirement: the system must preserve the
specific performer, language, and practice rather than normalizing them into a
generic dataset.

Technical Meaning

For motion:

- collect data from the actual performer and room;
- preserve raw video and sensor evidence;
- store source confidence and device identity;
- do not collapse camera-only and mocopi-enhanced sessions into one unmarked
category;
- keep gesture labels tied to real detector behavior.

For N'Ko:

• preserve N'Ko Unicode and writing direction;
• preserve acoustic evidence;
• keep the trajectory-biased CTC anchor distinct from MAOE correction proposals;
• preserve inscription provenance.

Architecture Implication

The system should be improvable from practice:

performance
  -> recording
  -> structured session archive
  -> labels / reports
  -> training or calibration
  -> verified artifact
  -> runtime deployment

No training claim should enter the docs without the dataset, command, artifact,
and evaluation report.

What To Avoid

• treating generic motion capture as equivalent to Mohamed's performance data;
• treating ASR correction as acoustic evidence;
• treating sensor absence as performer absence;
• treating a future shared latent as already trained;
• using old implementation names as cultural theory.

What To Preserve

• body-source context;
• N'Ko linguistic specificity;
• performer-specific data;
• safety boundaries for DJ commands;
• verifiable provenance for models and docs.