I excluded External because that is besides the point and complicates the explanation for no reason. But I hinted in my post that factual data is related to Extroversion/Bodies, just I have chosen a particular case because when we talk about Internal information we exclude accuracy from the start, and therefore we can't talk about "facts" at all. Being External is a prerequisite.
I'm not sure whether those are Aushra's definitions, nevertheless, you can observe that in the case of Ne and Fe, there is and interference of the subjective representation of the inner/hidden properties or changes. Only Se and Te can be applied to facts - while, like I said, Se not being fully objective, for it predicts present and lasting properties that are not experienced [1].
Fields information is also not applicable, it's the internal reflection of external world, it is conceptual and not applied to a certain instance (object). Fields information are merely the rules that are drawn using the information gathered by Bodies IEs empirically.
Yes, Bodies and Fields can never be separated in practice, but that is besides the point, our goal was to figure out what is what. You made the mistake to mix in only the Fields function in the Static case (Se), not doing so for the Dynamic one (Te). Think that facts, as they are, are unusable per se, they have no meaning, unless one's only purpose is to keep records. However we know that they are actually used very successfully in practice, that is where the Fields Dynamic functions come into play (Si and Ni).
---
When you talk about Se, it is not necessary to talk about the necessity of Ti. Indeed generic notions like "length" or "triangle" are Static Fields, but it is the Extroverted Perception which caused their existence in the intellect first place. Or do you imagine that humans have always had these notions a priori then looked for them in nature?
When you look at a triangle, you don't know it is a triangle in advance, only after your perception gathers that unspeakable information from your senses are you able to identify its structure and relationships to other objects. I gather that if this perception itsef were not able to sort the sensory data, one would not be able to match it against the existing structural knowledge.
Imagine closing your eyes and following a surface touching it with your hand. Depending on the complexity of the surface, you will make different assumptions of what it is. That means that you have no concepts about it and you build them on the fly from the object, all you can tell is "it goes like this, then like this, hmm... this seems to be something long, let me start over faster... hmm this is long... and this is edgy, and this is a hole. oh yeah, a sqare hole". You don't have any structural information about the object and if that it has a shape or a texture that you never experienced before, you don't even know how to qualify it (because you don't have the Fields information), it will take you a hell of a long time to find a place for it in your brain, even when it takes no time to experience it as it is.
---
[1] - @Absurd: this is what I mean when I say that Se information can't be fully qualified as facts, although in practice it is often referred so.