Besides these things, there are many other details that make Gamma NT > Alpha NT. Take for example his sense of timing. The way I know Alpha NTs, when you ask them about when to do something they answer something lie "well, whenever it is possible" - it doesn't normally even matter to them when, or in what order, you do each thing, would you agree?
In fact focus on timing is what I find annoying in Gamma NTs: while ILI is a nitpicker when it comes to the requisites, LIE is resolute when it comes to the follow-up. A case from my real life, from your POV it might be invalid, as long as I might have mistyped them, but on the other hand I think it fits these Socionics types:
I worked, among others, with an ILI colleague (she) and an LIE boss (he). When we had to deal with a problem, she was exasperating everyone with "shouldn't we first ... ?"; sometimes she was right/approved, sometimes she was wrong/dismissed - but the overall impression was that she was always trying to make up hitches, impediments, why we can't get the job done. It was like everytime we were hurrying to get to work she was somehow trying to curb our enthusiasm, while - obviously, considering her type - she was only trying to find out whether something won't work as planned. Indeed, some of her alleged "impediments" were merely trivial things that could be overlooked and fixed along the time.
Now the LIE was different, he was stopping people doing some things and always changing priorities. When a solution was suggested, unlike the ILI who was trying to find out whether we have the requisites for the whole action, whose lack would make the solution useless, the LIE was rather focused on whether we'll meet our goal. For example, if the request of a client -
often could be even something to satisfy the caprices of the SEE director - he could change the priorities, like saying "let's do that later, this first". He was focused on whether the goal will still stand in time, the most obvious gain was his first priority - sometimes he appeared to arbitrarily change plans on purpose, to show who's the boss, although I doubt that.
Now my problem: I was focused on whether the solution will work or not - obviously, a complex one, this is what I'm talking about, otherwise it was trivial to make up our minds. It did not matter to me the ambiguities of if we *possibly* miss all/some our requisites or if we *possibly* will be forced to change our goals, especially because these were always changing and unclear. It is true that the usefulness of the solution was depending on these things, but on the other hand these things were dependent on the solution as well! Why the hell would we talk about the requisites since the solution might possibly fail, and why would we talk about the goals since we don't have a solution to them?
You see, it's the same dependency from the perspective of Ti, of a static type. No one was right, just each was focusing on something else; they, as Gamma NTs were focusing on the timeline and workflow, I was focusing on the validity. It's just natural, Socionics! To me, a solution is useful anyway, if we confirm it/make it work, we can anyway use it later in case that all the rest falls in place; we can also keep it for other similar situations that may appear in the future.
---
Now you may say all this Alpha->validity Gamma->timing may not actually apply to the scenario, but I think it does (I don't feel like reading the text again) and hopefully you will take a look on it. This guys sounds to be the *kind of person* who knows what he's doing and also someone who's natural with creating and giving directives to people, regardless of the realism of the scenario.
In any case, even if this was only a detail that doesn't say much, my example is IMO educative and may refer to it in the future to point out the differences between these types, so don't mind it too much
.