How do primary craft sources say to deliver backstory through dialogue without an exposition dump, and when is a "conventional" device acceptable?

Archer (chs. VI-VII) distinguishes dramatised exposition, where the unveiling of the past is itself the conflict (Ibsen, Ghosts), from narrative exposition, and permits a quick conventional device when dramatising is not possible, but condemns "rubbing in" the device and plunging into narrative before the audience cares. Baker agrees the facts must be stated but wants them stated in character and in an order that sustains interest. Neither names the "info dump" phrase. Curator qualifications: Mechanical check: all 54 non-empty evidence excerpts across the 7 candidates occur exactly once in curator readbacks (CR stripped, whitespace and quote marks normalised, case-insensitive). Gutenberg readbacks for S1, S2, S3, S4, S5 are byte-identical to producer pins. Spot phrases: Archer 'no inherent superiority in one method over another' 1; 'Such a rubbing-in, as it were, of an obvious device ought at all hazards to be avoided' (hyphenated; unhyphenated 'rubbing in' 0). Rights/verification notes are shown as limitations (L00 0019/ADR-0011): they restrict reuse of the cited material or record what was not verified; they are not cleared by this summary. Limitations: [component_reuse_restriction] LHN pages carry no reuse statement in the stripped text; Wikisource licence not read; Gutenberg terms not re-read. Evidence status: curator/producer inference or synthesis from the cited sources (code read, not executed, where code is cited); correlated desk review (Claude); not independently reviewed.

{
  "citations": [
    {
      "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/10865/pg10865.txt",
      "note": "see curator disposition"
    },
    {
      "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/36580/pg36580.txt",
      "note": "see curator disposition"
    }
  ]
}