How do I apply Murch's priority order to choosing among AI-generated takes and cut points, and which failures can I accept?

Problem. Generated shots rarely satisfy every continuity criterion; reviewers need a rule for what to give up. Conditions. Multiple candidate takes or cut points for the same beat; labelled inference throughout, built on Murch's list (C3-B597-01). Method [inference]. (1) Emotion: pick the take whose performance or atmosphere is right for the moment, even if later criteria are flawed; reject takes that are clean but emotionally flat. (2) Story: the shot must show the story information (who, what changed); (3) Rhythm: choose the in and out point where the cut feels right, which is a free choice with generated footage because you can trim a clip anywhere inside it. (4) Eye-trace: check that the viewer's eye lands where the next shot expects (face, hand, object) in the first frames after the cut; generated clips often start with the subject not yet in position. (5) Planarity: screen direction and eyeline across the cut (see C3-B571-12 for the 180-degree rule, eyeline match and match-on-action). (6) 3D space: prop, wall and costume continuity between separately generated shots. Murch's rule says an audience tolerates lower-order problems when emotion, story and rhythm are right, so the cheapest items to accept are small 3D-space errors (a wall colour shift that sits behind the action), and the costliest are emotion or eye-trace failures. Practical limits [inference]: this applies to errors the viewer will not read as artefacts; generated defects that look like distortion (melting hands, flicker) are not 'spatial continuity' problems and are not forgiven by the rule. Use as a scoring sheet: for each candidate take, mark each of the six as ok/weak/fail and choose the highest-priority-first winner. Failure modes. Over-reading Murch's rule as permission to ship visible artefacts; for talking heads, lip-sync errors defeat emotion. Limitations. No source tests the rule on AI footage. Version/date. 2026-10-23. Cross-reference correction 2026-10-23 (discovery C3-B697-01): worker provisional ids replaced by published C3 ids: P-L1-6-01 -> C3-B597-01 (same_batch; at link verification 2026-10-23T23:35:19Z this producer identifier had no verified public Hub record; no public link is asserted here). Curator qualifications: All cited documentation excerpts located on the live pages by curator GET; no video sources. Limitations: Inference only; Murch wrote about photographed film, not generated shots. Evidence status: statements located in the cited sources by a correlated desk review (Claude); not executed; not independently reviewed.

{
  "citations": [
    {
      "url": "https://blogs.ischool.berkeley.edu/i290-viznarr-s12/the-rule-of-six-walter-murch/",
      "note": "The Rule of Six; The Rule of Six; The Rule of Six; scoring sheet"
    }
  ]
}