What is “authenticity,” especially in unconventional work? Part 2

In a previous post, I discussed “authenticity” versus “integrity,” saying that integrity is in reference to an internal assessment while authenticity is more of an external assessment/comparison.

And now I look again at this question: if the work does not come directly from the self, what gives it its “justification,” what it can be measured against—how can it “check out”?

One simple answer is that, if there is a constraint or method employed in developing the poem, then the poem can be measured for being “true” to the method.  I don’t think this is quite a test of “authenticity,” however, but more of a test of integrity: the means of the poem are not fully external to the poem.  As Oulipians would say, the poem is a description of the method.  The means is integral, immanent.

Perhaps it can be said that comparing the work to a source text (assuming one was used) could be a form of checking for authenticity, as the latter is an external baseline to the former.  Still, what sort of permutations a method required must be taken into account to see the relation between the source text and the work—but perhaps the source text itself is external enough so that this is still a test of authenticity?  I feel willing to assert so, because having this external component involved precludes it from the interiority of integrity.

The source text has a relation to the poem.  It contributed to the poem, but is still external to the poem.

Now I am thinking: does the external baseline that “authenticity” requires need to have contributed to the work?  I am tempted to say yes because if not, then it seems like it would be mere comparison, which could be at random or simply comparing things that seem alike—and while these comparisons may be useful, they aren’t the type of comparisons “authenticity” seems to want.

So: authenticity is a form of comparison of x to y, with y being both external to x and yet having contributed to the formation of x; therefore, this y would be an independent variable and this x would be a dependent variable.  Because authenticity seems to entail some sort of dependency of one thing to another, this seems fitting.

Does this idea of authenticity sound right?  Why or why not?