“Dynamic at start of repeat region is ambiguous.”
No it’s not! What is triggering this advice? See image.
I don’t see a dynamic at a start of a repeat region in your screen shot…
The proofreader isn’t a checklist of things to fix; it’s a list of suggestions. You can ignore the ones you disagree with. If you need to see an empty list, you can shut the proofreader off.
1 Like
Here is a more complete screenshot. The warnings also include “Is the technique at the start of the repeat region unnamed?”
Yes, I realize that. Still, if the proofreader is making suggestions that are clearly unnecessary, it does not give me confidence to use it. The dynamics at the start of the repeat region are simply not ambiguous.
Hi @intelligentlife, in both your screenshots, I cannot see/identify the bars in the score (bar 12, 13 and 50) that correspond to those Proofreading items. (But maybe I am blind).
Could you please post a Dorico file example, so that, besides seeing the issue someone can also give advice based on the context?
It’s bars 12 & 13: guitar 1 “SOLO” f, guitar 3 mf, guitar 4 mf. All clearly not ambiguous. Attached is the project file.
El Vito guitar quartet - new-v6.dorico (1.8 MB)
Thank you for the file, @intelligentlife.
The ambiguous dynamic Proofreading items seem to have something to do with the Segno in bar 9 (referred to D.S. of bar 79). Deleting the Segno in bar 9 makes those specific Proofreading items disappear.
But I have no idea why Dorico considers the Dynamics “ambiguous”… (I am sure someone will find an explanation)
The real problem with the ambiguous items is that the Segno is in the wrong place - it’s a quaver before the start-repeat barline. This is confusing the proofreader.
The problem with the “region Unnamed?)” warning is a bug that we’re still investigating.
3 Likes
I’ve found out where the “technique unnamed” entry is coming from:
(Please bear with me; and keep in mind that this is only an explanation of what is happening, and it does not mean that I agree with the algorithm 
)
In this document, we find numerous playing techniques regarding which string to use, and some entries for Half Barré. Some of them have a duration, some don’t. Those with a duration are not important here. Those without a duration tell Dorico that there are playing techniques going on - and that’s why it might be a good idea to tell the user at the first entry or after jumps which PT to use.
(Imagine a bass player: If they find “pizz.” as well as “arco” somewhere in the piece, they would need to know how to play the very first note.)
If you either remove all PTs without a duration or if you give them a duration, all the “technique unnamed” entries will vanish from the list 
Disclaimer: I don’t know anything about guitar playing, so this is just a technical analysis. I’m wondering: Once you tell the player to play on string 2, what would be the playing technique to cancel this PT?
Thanks for that. As soon as I removed and reinserted at the correct location, the warning disappeared.
Thanks for your reply. Half Barré needs to be specified each time a barré symbol appears. Without the half indication, it is a full bar. This is standard practice. There is no indication that would “cancel” it. Same thing with string numbers. There is only the indication for the passage to be played on that string, and there is no “cancellation” indication required.
Yeah, I thought so.
I don’t know if there is enough differentiation currently when indicating the string to use between “PT with a length”, “PT from here on until cancelled” and “PT for only this very note”?
Anyway, I’m sure they will sort that out in due course
“Performance Technique” should not be following a single rule concept, such as “needs to be cancelled.” I understand the concept for playback, where sul tasto has to be cancelled by pos norm, and similar situations. But playing on a string is not a “technique”.
2 Likes
I have a guess about “ambiguous dynamic.” The crescendo hairpin overlaps the repeat bar line, so that, on repeat, only the end of it is perceived by Dorico. Might you adjust the wide end of the hairpin to end just to the left of the repeat bar, leaving the forte marking at the start of the repeated section, and see if the proofreader finds that less ambiguous?
2 Likes
Welcome to the forum, @truekris.
That was my first thought as well. The letter-dynamic isn’t ambiguous, but the end-of-hairpin is, if it operates past the start of the repeat.
One might decide that the f on the downbeat makes it sufficiently unambiguous, and therefore ignore the proofreading remark. But the comment doesn’t come out of nowhere.
2 Likes
As I’ve already explained, the ambiguous warning comes about because of the misplaced Segno - this means that the DS is jumping back to the bar before the repeat, where most of the instruments are notionally still “mf” rather than “f” (even though there aren’t any notes there).