Draw the Boundary Between a Production Host and a Learning Engine

"A DAW can contain learning features. Bonfire simply has no reason to delegate its core to one."

The Idea, Pushed to Its End

The corrected test produces a more precise result. Logic has real extension surfaces but no documented general project model for Bonfire's requirement. Live has an official LOM and could provide an input adapter, but the LOM does not perform Bonfire's analysis or coaching, and Live is not Dad's primary music host. None of that proves a DAW can never contain lessons, coaching plug-ins, or practice features. This is not a law about two species of software. It is a decision about Bonfire's product boundary and Dad's actual workflow.

The Decision Converges on an Independent Engine

Should Bonfire's core live as a DAW sidecar?
  Logic: no documented project model for the required integration
  Live:  LOM exists, but Bonfire still owns MIR and coaching
  Dad:   primary work is in Logic; Live is not required residency
Decision: keep Bonfire's core in an independent engine.
  => DAWs may become optional input/output adapters.
  => Capo standalone is a precedent, not proof of a universal law.

Bonfire therefore keeps its own canvas and engine. Not because independence is the only buildable form, but because analysis, simplification, and coaching should not inherit the lifecycle of one DAW and its API. Capo also combines song analysis and practice in a standalone app, so it is a useful precedent for the practicality of this choice. One comparable does not prove the market had only one possible answer.

Keep the Doors; Avoid the Core Dependency

Independence does not mean ignoring DAWs. A Live clip path or audio exported from Logic can become an optional Bonfire input. Bonfire might also send practice stems or guides back to a DAW. Add those adapters when real use appears. The discipline is not 'never integrate a DAW.' It is 'do not make Bonfire's core model unable to run without one particular DAW.'

Code

An independent-engine product decision·text

Should Bonfire's core live as a DAW sidecar?
  Logic: no documented project model for the required integration
  Live:  LOM exists, but Bonfire still owns MIR and coaching
  Dad:   primary work is in Logic; Live is not required residency

Decision: keep Bonfire's core in an independent engine.
  => DAWs may become optional input/output adapters.
  => Capo standalone is a precedent, not proof of a universal law.

Exercise

Choose one production tool and one learning tool. Name each tool's core outcome, then list what embedding the learning feature inside the production host would gain and lose. Add supported API, real residency, and core-model independence to the scorecard before choosing host, sidecar, or standalone.

Hint

Different purposes do not forbid integration, and technical possibility does not justify a core dependency. The boundary comes from the intersection of value, supported API, and actual workflow.