There are a few other things that might be considered a bit in the realm of the whole Gulenko discussion, and that's that by virtue of his contrasting static versus dynamic characteristics of type we immediately are drawing in a whole hell of a lot more than simply looking at how
might be described. Essentially the scope of what we're talking about is so much narrower. It's not enough to simply force the question onto Gulenko's terms.
I'm going to digress a bit and say that I do think that Ne is about picking up something about the objects in your environment. They appear to have this or that quality about them to the perceiver, typically in ways that have a lot less to do with whatever more visible, obvious properties might say. I can also agree that Ti and Fi are what's used to actually codify, delineate, and associate these as similarities (I won't bother with any specifics of how the two are different), in whatever way makes the most amount of consistent sense to the person seeing all these things. That's to say that when Vero talks about Ne as associative in terms of semiotics, particularly when it's in the middle of a discussion on someone's type, that we've gone beyond just talking about some individual function. We're talking about a person's ego block. We're talking about the associations we see being made, and we may be noticing that these are primarily revolving around the sort of qualities Ne is able to 'see'. I don't think many people would look at the above and find it to be all too strange a way of a description or very weird at all to consider as a line of reasoning in support of ILE.
Whew, this is harder to write than I thought! Back to Gulenko though. My point in bringing up the way he differentiates static and dynamic is that we have intra-static and intra-dynamic ways of comparing what falls into each category. In static, we've got Ne vs Se, Ti vs Fi, then the four combos where they're combined (more important as we're talking about types of people, not just the definition of some lone theoretical term). We're capturing more here than we need. Vice versa on the other side we are comparing it to. If we're just trying to select between one element of each group (ILE or SEI), we seem to be widening the discussion without much of a need to. This sounds like I'm more or less dismissing the point you're making about the former being analytic or fragmenting and the latter tending more towards associative/synthetic thinking, but I guess to me it seems like there isn't a contradiction between what you've quoted from Vero and from Gulenko, except as a linguistic or contextual difference. The description I gave up there *points* seems to me that you consistently view the world in a fragmentary way (looking at each object's qualities) and analytically (how to put them in agreement/disagreement with other object qualities) and as a result still being immensely 'associative' (tossing some object into the framework machine and it spitting out a lot of things most people wouldn't immediately comprehend unless they saw a comparable quality, worked under a similar framework, etc).