We argue that dividing codec design into Coding for Machines (CfM) and Coding for Humans (CfH) is a misleading distinction for deciding what information a codec may discard. Receiver identity does not determine admissible information loss. The required rate depends on task scope, including the predictions to support, their losses and tolerated risks, the encoder observation, and the permitted decoding procedures. Notably, a machine task may have a higher minimum rate than a restricted human decision. Rate savings on selected machine tasks apply only to the stated requirements, not to an intrinsic ordering by receiver type. We extend source and feature coding to finite task families, derive when restricting the encoder observation preserves the minimum rate, and show that equality between source and split-feature coding rates can no longer hold as the task scope expands.

翻译：暂无翻译