Is analytical uncertainty an appropriate way to convey an ambiguity that frequently stumps enculturated performers? Conversely, does analytical confidence inherently erase the difficulties musicians and analysts may confront when performing or theorizing about a piece? What responsibility does the analyst have to represent these challenges? In this paper I address these questions through the case study of the Luchazi dance music of Mungongi. In the cultural region spanning northwestern and western Zambia, eastern Angola, and southwestern Democratic Republic of the Congo, Luchazi and related communities perform Mungongi in several settings. It is the preferred music for certain makishi (manifest ancestral spirits), accompanies graduation from traditional initiation ceremonies, and is a royal dance of conquest at festivals. Despite Mungongi’s importance, performers from this cultural zone often have difficulty executing its drum patterns and dance steps. Some of these performance challenges (especially those related to the primary timeline instrument, the mikakaji) provide evidence of emic metric ambiguity. Performers often disagree on the number of fastest pulses that structure this music. These discrepancies make notation and analysis of Mungongi challenging. Throughout my studies of this genre, I have oscillated between representing its meter with three different time signatures: 6/8, 2/4, and 5/8. In this paper, I recount my shifting perceptions of the metrically ambiguous Mungongi by outlining the ethnographic data (collected through extensive field research) that has led me to seemingly conflicting conclusions about its meter. I consider the implications of dance steps, vocables, variations in supporting drum parts, song, lead drum phrases, the larger Luchazi musical repertoire, and performance on instruments not traditionally used for this genre. Acknowledging that any analysis is inherently shaped by its analyst, I also consider the role my own positionality has played in informing my understanding of Mungongi. This autoethnographic section closes with an explanation of why I feel most comfortable mapping this piece onto a 5/8 structure consisting of non-isochronous beats. The paper concludes with commentary on the practice of analysis. I ruminate on the positives of uncertainty, embrace ambiguity, contemplate the possible colonial undertones of this venture, champion embodied knowledge, advocate for attention to performers’ errors, and question our tools of analysis.