In the article we establish that a performance is a spectacle that either goes through “composition or facilitation” once live depending on the position an artist places themselves in the continuum between both. Placing live coding into this continuum poses some conceptual challenges, particularly in defining where liveness and instrumental agency truly reside in such performances. Live coding simultaneously embodies real-time composition while relying on pre-existing computational structures that we often practice and reference, which complicate a clear distinction between creation and execution. Reading the opposing perspectives about liveness and performer activity raised in the article further complicates this distinction, as it becomes unclear whether the value of a performance lies in visible real-time decision-making or in the premeditated design of a cohesive audiovisual experience. While the article had a clear preference, I do find myself wondering if one is more valuable than the other or if this hierarchy in itself is a product of traditional assumptions about what counts as an “authentic” performance and what doesn’t. The distinction to an extent feel less like a measure of artistic value and more like a reflection of audience expectations, where immediacy is equated with authenticity. I do agree though that revealing the process through the display of the code and the inner workings of the performance as it is being created does create a sort of connection with the audience even if they do not fully comprehend the technical language being displayed to them. This visibility reinforces the perception of real-time decision-making, aligning live coding more closely with traditional notions of liveness as active creation rather than mere execution.