How to name $Title and move $Text for notes containing bracketed titles?

That is what the stamp does. The curly brackets —which you chose to insert, tell you what is title and what is text. You could choose to put in different markers. But, we’re going in circles. You ask a question, the community answers it, you then say “actually I wanted to do something else”, and it’s getting exhausting. What’s the real question here?

What is happening that make you think it does? If you can’t tell me the other processes going on it’s hard to give you a blanket assertion there will be not interaction. Usefully I notice that the Action prototype isn’t documented, but essentially is is the same as the built-in Code prototype but with syntax colour outing of action code. I’m unclear as to how or why this would have negative side effects. Perhaps you customised it and forgot. If you posted example docs showing the prototype you thing doesn’t work it might give us a more close-ended problem with which to work.

‘A’ and ‘b’ are just example names for simple clarity, partly because there is no reference example from which to work. I wasn’t suggesting the stamp only works with a note called ‘A’ or ‘B’.

I hope you’re making progress. But, to help us help you, try to avoid open-ended questions as they are hard/impossible to answer in a meaningful way. Best is to post a specimen document showing the problem and with instructions on how to recreate the problem along with a description of what you expected to happen and what you actually got. I tend to find that just making such a document answers many of my own questions before I get to ask them. Either, because an answer pops out at me, or more often I realise the problem isn’t what I assumed it was allowing me carry on with the answer or start over with a better defined question/test.

Apropos of nothing (just off plane, middle seat, exhausted)…

It it quite common here for people to inquire about highly stylized and abstracted toy problems that stand in for what the inquirer wants to do. I understand that this is tempting and sometimes necessary, but I find it is often counterproductive.

First: sometimes the actual details of the actual data do matter. Knowing what your action actually needs to do often helps get things done.

Second, it’s just nice, where possible, to know about the actual work. Neuroarchaeology? The history of tarot in Bloomsbury? Running for dog catcher? People love to know. Sure, that’s not always possible: we have some intelligence folk here, and some investigative journalists. No doubt a spook or two. Some of the real data is sensitive: I’ve never even seen the largest know Tinderbox document because it’s populated with dermatological data.

Abstraction helps too, sometimes — especially if you encounter a problem, abstract it to something so simple it could not possibly fail, and discover that the abstracted form fails, too. That’s great. But it’s usually more difficult than the actual problem, not less.