The "causative passive" form is very well documented. It's easily made possible because the a causative verb is a valid ichidan verb, and therefore compatible with the passive conjugation.
However, in the resources I have on-hand, there is nothing to suggest the inverse is commutative. To be specific, does a "passive causative" verb have a meaning equal to that of the "causative passive"?
Furthermore, is the "passive causative" conjugation ordering even used? Or is it unconventional?
- ❌ The conjugations have a commutative property ("causative passive" is semantically identical to the "passive causative");
- ❌ This hypothesis is disproved on the basis that conjugation ordering matters. Thank you, @naruto !
- ❌ Furthermore, the final component/conjugation suffix is the main function of the verb. Thank you, @aguijonazo !
- ❌ The "causative passive" is euphonically preferred (「聞かせられる」 is easier to say and more pleasing to hear than
- Therefore the "passive causative" is unconventional and never used.
- ❌ This hypothesis is disproved on the basis of being dependent on the first, disproven, hypothesis. This hypothesis doesn't have a leg to stand on! Thank you, @Jun Sato !
If my speculations hold true, then I'm seeking a citation to support these claims (which is actually the aim of this question).
There was a typo (ら instead of さ), which confused some of the people who tried to help in the answers.