You're missing the paradigm where, as the wish is constructed, to use this feature or not.

Generally anything is undesirable unless you programmed it that way. I think it is valid to request the facility to program a Performance which inherits the superknob position from a previous Performance. The request is not to force every Performance this way. All presets would not be programmed this way.

Of course. But in this case, we're talking about programming something into a particular Performance that doesn't just affect itself. It will behave differently depending on which Performance you had played immediately prior.

Designing a system that allows for every possibility is what leads to systems being overly complicated. To me, this one crosses the threshold of questionable usability. Unless I'm misunderstanding something, you'd be creating a Performance that will sound right when coming from very specific other Performances you've created for the purpose of pairing with it, and will sound wrong if you happen to select that sound coming from pretty much any other sound. I'm not sure the cost/benefit ratio on this really works. But heck, what's one more screen parameter between friends? 😉

If you need to switch among a given set of sounds with shared superknob settings, wouldn't it make more sense to try to get those sounds into the same Performance to begin with? So then is this an issue only if you need to exceed 16 parts between the sounds you want to switch between?

This kind of setting only makes sense in transition - so, naturally, there is a paired prior performance (or set of performances) that would be in mind when setting a performance to inherit mode. We already have an inherit mode for controllers - that's global. So arguably, that's more chaotic than the silo'd approach. If you construct a set list and advance through the list using Live Set + (as has been advocated as a way to use these instruments effectively by Yamaha reps) - then your previous Performance is predetermined.

I'm not advocating one way or the other for this - just thought the request had as much merit as any other with demonstrable application.

The ability to unlink common assignable knobs from superknob started with the same style of push-back. Initial push-back is also not the best barometer if the request is valid or not.

We already have an inherit mode for controllers

Good point, that's nothing I'd ever looked at. Though conceptually it's a little different, in that those Performances are reading the current position of the controller when invoked. The continuous Superknob doesn't actually have a current position per se, physically. But from a musical perspective, I guess you could say they're no so different, even if I find the Superknob's status (and its function on the sound) to be more unpredictable in general.

But since you brought it up... 😉 Over at https://yamahasynth.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Montage-SSS-keep-sustain-pedal-state-for-new-performance/212021-45978#idea-tab-comments we were talking about how the state of the sustain pedal (if depressed) is not recognized when you call up a new Performance. Shouldn't "inherit mode for controllers" address that?

I don't think hold works for sustain - but I haven't tried. Controller Hold, for me, is fairly lousy because of how peanut-butter it is (all controllers, and all the time).

I've lumped together sustain pedal in another idea with how, generally, it would be nice to have more things in the seamless bucket.