Two concepts should not have the same purpose; additional concepts for the same purpose create needless complexity.

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.claim0.866
  No overloading criterion.
• Contrast, instead of separating things, brings them together when used to help centers become alive; contrast that fails to create deeper feeling is merely accidental or eye-catchingclaim0.783
  Claim distinguishing good contrast (Shaker schoolroom, which unifies) from bad contrast (glaring lobby staircase, which separates)
• The four concept criteria (motivation, no redundancy, no overloading, uniformity) are neither necessary nor sufficient but can explain design flaws.claim0.780
  Acknowledging the heuristic nature of the criteria.
• A concept should have an articulated purpose; without it, there is no reason from the user’s point of view.claim0.779
  Motivation criterion justification.
• A skill should do its work and stop, avoiding performative complexity and multi-stage flows when single-pass suffices.claim0.777
• "We could continue to invent new and exciting mechanisms beyond context-orientation and Worlds, ad absurdum, or recognise they are all just points within a dimensionally unbounded space of related, self-similar mechanisms."concept0.776
  Claim that many advanced programming paradigms reduce to parameterizations of the n-way associative model.
• Piggybacking a new purpose onto an existing concept (overloading) causes conflicts and design flaws.claim0.775
  Illustrated with OS X print subsystem example.
• How should we account for concepts having multiple forms at different levels of sophistication and exploit it in design?question0.769
  Open question about layered concept complexity.