Music theory isn't a set of rules so much as conventions and observations that constantly changes. Pitch naming is one of those that fits both, and it can be su

Music theory isn't a set of rules so much as conventions and observations that constantly changes. Pitch naming is one of those that fits both, and it can be subjective. There's some interesting set theoretical approaches to this problem I can think of, but I don't think they'd be of use practically. There's a reason most notation software gets it "wrong" when transcribing MIDI data, because there are multiple interpretations of the same data and a limited set of them can be "correct" and I can think of cases where 3-4 of them are equally correct (by metric) but obviously wrong to a reader. Pedogical example is the "German" augmented 6th chord, which is specifically used as a pivot between tonalities and has four alternative spellings in the same key, and while a theorist will tell you only one is correct in context, in practice one may be chosen over the other (and I'd bet there are scores out there where the same pitch is spelled differently for different instruments). Jazz isn't significantly different than baroque or classical. It's ordered chaos for the most part, and since it derives from blues will often fall into similar variations on familiar patterns harmonically. Notationally though, it can be all over the place, if it's notated at all. For example chord voicings are typically left as an exercise to the reader in Jazz, and early baroque, but left explicit in classical through to about the 1920s in art music where it has since diverged. Deceptively tricky problem. Fun to think about though. If you're tackling it, like it sounds like you are, just remember that all notation is lossy and it's purpose is either to convey information to a reader or performer. If you really want to get into the mind of it, study a bit of four voice harmony, counterpoint, and functional harmony. There's probably a lot on YouTube.