MacDowell makes this visible institutionally by treating uninterrupted time, studio space and basic care as conditions for serious work. Springgay and Truman politicise duration by showing that time itself can be unsettled. Ruitenberg demonstrates how repetition changes perception and learning. UNIDEE frames accretion as a long-term relation between programme and locality, while Kolb and Richter show how continuity can persist through scores whose identity survives variation. The central distinction is between recurrence and routine. Routine repeats without necessarily generating difference; recurrence returns under changed conditions and therefore permits comparison. A walk repeated in another season, a text reopened after circulation, a diagram remade with new evidence or a score enacted by another group all produce knowledge because continuity makes variation visible. This has infrastructural implications. Long-duration work requires systems capable of storing versions, preserving provenance and allowing earlier material to re-enter current research. An archive that only freezes completed objects is poorly suited to continuity. What is needed instead is an archive that can record sequences, revisions and returns. Socioplastics already operates at a scale where continuity is itself a field condition. Its corpus gains value when nodes can be revisited, reclassified, linked to later work and compared across years. Long duration turns accumulation into an analytical resource rather than a metric of volume. The strongest consequence is that continuity becomes a test of ideas. What persists under repeated contact acquires a different status from what disappears after one context. Within Socioplastics, this temporal capacity condenses as RhythmContinuity.