PLUCKED-LUTE IDENTIFICATION — ORIGINAL OBSERVATION RECORD
Selected modern examples; no measured scale, tuning or universal fret count.

REFERENCE / IMAGE / OBJECT OR PERFORMANCE:
MATCHING LABEL AND SOURCE:
BODY OUTLINE — OBSERVED OR OBSCURED:
NECK / FRETS / STRINGS ACTUALLY VISIBLE:
SOUNDHOLES OR HAND ACTION, IF CLEAR:
SIZE REFERENCE OR MODEL INFORMATION:
CANDIDATE NAME / FAMILY / EXACT MEMBER:
EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THAT CONCLUSION:
WHAT REMAINS UNKNOWN / SOURCE TO CHECK:

COMPARISON
Pipa 琵琶 | Pear-shaped body; fretted neck | Four strings in the modern example discussed here | Outline alone does not separate it from every liuqin or historical lute
Liuqin 柳琴 | Smaller pear-shaped form resembling a pipa | Four strings in the modern orchestral example; other forms exist | Size needs a real reference; a small image is not a measured small instrument
Zhongruan 中阮 | Round-bodied member of the ruan family | Four strings in the modern ruan example | Round outline suggests a family; the exact size or label establishes the member

EVIDENCE AND LIMITS
Clear outline but no matching label | A body-shape observation and a limited candidate group | Exact instrument, size, tuning or date
Label and image refer to the same identified object | A name supported by that record’s scope | Every historical or regional version
Programme names a player or part | Context for that performance | Permanent musical role or solo tone in every recording
Two unrelated thumbnails | Two images with possibly different display scales | An actual size ranking from their on-screen widths

NINE CASES AND ANSWER NOTES
1. In panel A, what is the main outline contrast with panels B and C?
A is round-bodied; B and C are pear-shaped.
This describes the original diagrams. It is a visible comparison, not a general identification rule for every lute.

2. Within the worksheet’s three selected modern names, which teaching example has a round body?
Zhongruan, the middle-sized ruan example.
The candidate set is deliberately limited to pipa, liuqin and zhongruan. Outside that set, the round outline alone does not establish the exact instrument or family member.

3. Panels B and C both have pear-shaped bodies and no reliable physical scale or matching label. Can you definitely assign pipa and liuqin?
No. Keep the two candidates unresolved.
The shared outline is a first clue. Different diagram widths do not measure actual instruments; seek a matching label, model or reliable size reference.

4. A clear source record labels a round-bodied object zhongruan. Should your note keep the label and the outline on separate lines?
Yes. They are different pieces of evidence.
The label supplies the name within that record’s scope; your outline note records the visible clue. Check that they refer to the same object.

5. A front image appears to show four strings. Does that prove all historical liuqin forms had four?
No. Keep the selected version explicit.
TOR describes changes from an older two-string liuqin to a modern four-string instrument. A visible count in one example does not settle every version.

6. Two website thumbnails are displayed at 300 and 150 pixels wide. Does this show one physical instrument is twice as wide?
No. On-screen widths are not a physical scale.
The source images may have different crops, distances and display settings. Use a real scale or identified model information for a size comparison.

7. A diagram shows only a few fret lines. Should you count them as the exact specification of a modern pipa?
No. The lines indicate a fretted neck schematically.
The original teaching diagram is not a measured plan and does not specify an invariant fret count, spacing or tuning.

8. HKCO lists pipa, liuqin and zhongruan in its configuration. Does that identify an unlabelled stage photograph?
No. The list describes an ensemble arrangement.
Connect the actual photograph to its programme, player or model evidence. An organizational list is not an object label.

9. A source image fails to load, but its description says pear-shaped pipa. Can you write “photo visually inspected”?
No. Record the description and the missing image separately.
Text can support a descriptive claim within its source. It does not establish that you saw the object, checked its visible details or heard a linked recording.

SOURCES
https://chinesemusic.mtsu.edu/instrument-gallery/
https://timbreandorchestration.org/all-instruments/ensembles/chinese-orchestra/plucked-strings/introduction
https://www.hkco.org/en/Instrument-Rd/Chinese-Instruments/Plucked-String-Instruments.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liuqin