> you mentioned I was sidestepping the issue, but hope it is clearer now in any case! Ahahah, my apologies I didn't realise I was commenting directly to the au

> you mentioned I was sidestepping the issue, but hope it is clearer now in any case! Ahahah, my apologies I didn't realise I was commenting directly to the author, otherwise I would have not have referred to you in the third person. I disagree about "too much detail" here, in that clarity and simplicity, not vagueness, are the correct remedy to the risk of overinformation. But yes, your comments here add a lot more clarity to the idea, and it is indeed an interesting proposition, thank you for taking the time to elaborate. Hopefully someone who had the same initial impression as I did might find their way to this thread and be equally satisfied with your added thoughts here.