Before anyone can judge how artificial intelligence should be used in making music, someone has to decide what the question is. This short study asks how a public record designs that question before any judgment: what it asks, what it covers, who would decide and when, and what would change it. It reads sixteen inquiries from Dionyas, the music studio of the RISCON family: every inquiry whose leading domain is AI and creative control and whose lane is evidence. Dionyas publishes its 1,539 inquiries as editorial question designs and states that it has generated no judgment on them. Eight of the sixteen are general designs that name no artist or work, four belong to a series of designed industry cases, and four are editorial cases that name a company, a platform or a recording; what those four say about real organisations is their framing, which this study does not check. The records are in Korean and are read in a translation made for this study.
The study finds that the inquiries turn questions of rights and authorship into questions of documentation: what record of versions, choices and consent would let anyone tell assistance from generation. They name no decider and no deadline, place time only as the date of a source, and fence each inquiry with a boundary, a statement of what it may not claim, where a condition for reopening would stand. Read beside work on problem formulation and on AI in music, the design shows formulation done in public, and what it leaves to whoever answers.