Piggybacking a new purpose onto an existing concept (overloading) causes conflicts and design flaws.

Entities in the same semantic neighborhood but without a typed relation to this one — candidates for new edges or unrecognized duplicates.

• A concept should not attempt to serve two distinct purposes; this leads to conflicts and confusion.claim0.784
  No overloading criterion.
• Two concepts should not have the same purpose; additional concepts for the same purpose create needless complexity.claim0.775
  No redundancy criterion.
• The four concept criteria (motivation, no redundancy, no overloading, uniformity) are neither necessary nor sufficient but can explain design flaws.claim0.767
  Acknowledging the heuristic nature of the criteria.
• Intentional control of internal representations likely piggybacks on existing mechanisms for talking about a topicclaim0.757
  Mechanism speculation for the intentional control experiment.
• Operational misfits in concepts reveal design flaws without requiring implementation or testinghypothesis0.756
  Jackson's hypothesis that negative scenarios can identify conceptual design problems early
• A concept should have an articulated purpose; without it, there is no reason from the user’s point of view.claim0.752
  Motivation criterion justification.
• Concept interventions on some concepts act as 'wrecking-ball' interventions, collapsing global model performance.finding0.743
  Observation of catastrophic performance drop when steering certain concepts.
• We want to build systems which can be enhanced and modified in a piecemeal fashion. This is necessary because the requirements for systems inevitably change, sometimes even before they are deployed for the very first time.quote0.742
  Opening statement of the GARDEN OF APPLICATIONS pattern, articulating the core force.