Dragonlance campaign setting has a service called the reserve of strength. This is the full text of its benefits:
If you use a spell, you can choose to increase your spell level by 1, 2, or 3, but you will be stunned for an equal number of turns immediately afterwards. Your increased spell level affects all spell-based variables in the spell, including range, area of effect, penetration of the spell, and the difficulty of dispelling the spell. You can use this talent to exceed the normal level limits of a spell. A 9th-level wizard might use reserves of strength to cast a fireball as a 12th-level wizard and cause 12d6 of Fire damage.
If you are not exposed to any amazing effects, you will suffer 1 point 6, 3 point, or 5 point 6 damage instead, when you call for your power reserves.
(Dragonlance campaign setting pg. 86 Emphasis Mine)
The bold part is the one that draws the most attention: it allows spells to exceed their normal wizard limit, potentially allowing much greater effects from the same spell slot. In practice this does not usually matter – usually spells are outdated anyway – but certain spells, especially when combined with other shenanigans to heighten absurdly the spell level, are pretty much broken by this feat.
However, some claim that the feat can not do this: that the trick is limited to exceeding this limit by the 1, 2, or 3 that you add to the rest of the artist level, rather than any other source of art Magic Artist The level – be it a high level or a myriad of bonuses – can exceed that limit.
Is there anything in the text of the performance itself that supports this claim?
Note that this claim has two aspects in some ways: you can only benefit from the benefit that exceeds the limit when you use the CL-for-stun trade, and second, that the benefit that exceeds the limit applies just to the CL from the CL for Stun trade and not to CL from another source. It is enough to deal only with the second one (because if the limit is exceptionally only for the trade bonus, you obviously have to trade), but it would not be enough just to talk about whether the trade is up must be taken place. The main problem is whether or not the performance allows the use of arbitrarily high CLs; Whether you need to take an anesthetic effect or a compensation of 6 to gain this benefit is a secondary concern.
This question is not about balance and not about what someone thinks is the trick should say or even about what we suspect the authors have or have not meant to do the trick: that is purely about what the text in the publication itself, as published, says, and whether there is a way to justify this restriction within its own text.