I was hoping to avoid another hack at '54 but since people insist others simply don't understand it seems unavoidable. BTW I may well not understand but I'll show my working out so you can see how I got to the wrong answer.

The various Mudcat threads say 1954 is folk in the sense it defines the tradition. If it isn't in the ballads and broadsheets it can't be folk because it isn't continuing the tradition of change and adaptation. Clearly there's a link between IFMC 54 and now because performing musicians and singers regard it as a source even if the council/committee had no intention of it being a musical performance template(which IMO is unclear).

There's various pleas and procrastination as to the extent 1954 is relevant to what goes on in the name of folk from absolutist borders to 54 having absolutely no relevance to folk today but clearly the conclusions of that committee still resonate.
The question is do other forms of music have institutional bodies that have left their mark so deeply on what's actually played now?