One might then argue that without the Process/Result dichotomy being a necessary result of Model A, we can end up with contradictions. If we were to accept both Model A and Process/Result as canon without one being entailed by the other, a clear ILE type in terms of Model A who happens to write in a concrete --> abstract, 'Result' manner would present a major flaw to Socionics.
I would also argue that the ideas of Social Progress are superfluous to a more Model A-centric account of the relationships of Benefit and Supervision where the feelings of inadequacy arise in the former case from the matching of the Beneficiary's Suggestive with the Benefactor's Creative and the Benefactor's Suggestive with the Beneficiary's Vulnerable and in the latter case, from the matching of the Supervisor's Leading with the Supervisee's Vulnerable and the matching of the Supervisee's Leading with the Supervisor's Creative.
In short, because I find it reasonable to believe all parts of the canon should be demonstrable from Model A, I would not consider Social Progress or the dichotomies crucial to it (but not crucial to Model A) to be canon but requiring empirical backing and better explanation before they are canonised. I also find that this demonstrates the strength of my knowledge of Socionics and not any weakness.
Would you be willing to voice which wrong decisions are being made?