GAMUT

Working dossier · Version 0.1 — Source and score research; direct comparative listening remains open.

In this dossier: Overview

Three works around 26 June 1788

A bounded Mozart dossier · 16 September 2026 · version 0.1, research draft

Question: What does the shared catalogue date of K. 543, K. 545 and K. 546 let us say about Mozart’s range of musical practices, and where does the evidence stop?

The first result is a more precise account of plurality: orchestral writing, a keyboard sonata intended for beginners, and the adaptation of an earlier fugue coexist in the documentary record. They have different compositional histories and publication histories. The date does not establish that Mozart invented all three works on one day, or that financial distress caused their differences.

This dossier begins the historical pilot agreed after the intake assessment. It is an AI-assisted research draft for author review. The supplied August 2026 PDF/DOCX remain unchanged local inputs, identified in that assessment; their authorship and bibliographic provenance still require clarification before a revised monograph is published. This dossier supplies new research notes, not a silently revised edition of that manuscript.

Read the dossier

  1. Sources and chronology: source identities, exact locators, date types and unresolved source discrepancies.
  2. Claim register: historical claims, score observations and interpretations, with editorial decisions.
  3. Score comparison: selected passages actually inspected in the Neue Mozart-Ausgabe (NMA).
  4. Comparative listening worksheet: identified release candidates and a bounded, unperformed listening procedure.
  5. Essay draft: A date is not a state of mind: an argument derived from the evidence, for discussion rather than publication.

What changed after checking

  • A date was attached to the wrong action. In DME document BD 1077, 17 June belongs to Puchberg’s record of sending money. The appeal is dated editorially before that day. BD 1076 has only a June date and acknowledges an existing debt. Replace an exact first-appeal chronology with these distinct records. See C01–C02.
  • The composer’s own account complicates the causal thesis. BD 1079 describes both increased work in the new lodgings and worries that hinder further progress. It does not support the intake abstract’s assertion that crisis increased creative capacity. See C03 and C13.
  • The cluster contains work on an existing composition. K. 546 joins a new Adagio to a string version of the earlier K. 426 fugue. The history of that earlier material matters to what the 1788 date means. See C05.
  • The comparison has inspectable musical content. K. 545 I, bars 42–45, returns to the opening theme in F major; K. 546’s fugue introduces voices successively. “Simple” and “learned” therefore need passage-level explanation. See S02 and S06.

These works are selected from the intake’s argument, not sampled to represent Mozart’s entire output. K. 544, also associated with this catalogue cluster in the DME commentary to BD 1079, is outside the selected corpus. Neither the number of selected works nor their differences measures a change in productivity or psychological state.

Completion boundary and next pickup

The documentary register, chronology, focused score comparison and essay draft are written. Modern scholarly transcriptions and catalogue records were consulted; Mozart’s original thematic-catalogue leaf and the complete autograph/source chains were not independently collated. This is not a full critical edition or a complete analysis of the three works.

Direct comparative listening remains open. Release metadata is evidence of release identity, not audition. The worksheet contains no invented timestamps or performer observations. Complete it before adding claims about Uchida or a fortepiano interpretation to the essay. The remaining editorial checks are listed at the end of the source register and mapped to HIST-02/HIST-04 in OPEN_WORK.

The next research sequence is: review this argument → complete the listening comparison and source discrepancies → revise the dossier. The user has also approved separate Eschatology Report companions: a source-based author-review draft and a changed-return essay scope that requires L01 listening. Possible wider GAMUT relationships are framed as questions, not established theoretical results. The website reading edition presents these records as a working draft; it does not change their evidence status. A finished publication at The Eschatology Report remains a separate editorial decision. This dossier adds no formal theorem or evaluated musical interface.