Could the Function Ordering be Different from Model A?

[The Ineffable]

1. Leading: Ti.
2. Creative: Ne.
3. Role: Se.
4. Vulnerable: Fi.
5. Suggestive: Fe.
6. Mobilizing: Si.
7. Ignoring: Te.
8. Demonstrative: Ni.

The reason that this might make more intuitive sense is that there is more symmetry in this model. For instance, in the LII above, the strongest function contrasts the weakest function (which is judging), seeks another judging function and is contrary to another judging function. Perhaps Ausra Augusta missed something when creating Model A... What do you think?

No because opposite IAs don't conflict by themselves (they are actually very close), but as functions [1]. Then as functions, they trully conflict when one is Accepting and the other Producing. Please use the square of opposites as an analogy to understand how is it conceptually sensible.
---

Quantifiers make a huge difference. Imagine this case: Person A believes that all substances are composite, person B believes that all things are composed of simple parts, therefore not all substances are composite [2]. This corresponds to the Base (for goor reasons also called "Program") function role of generalizing a certain aspect to all facets of the universe. But now what? We have two people of diverging absolute beliefs, but who can't prove anything to each other for the simple fact that their the universals can never be proved (it would require knowledge of everything), it is a life-long goal that can only refine knowledge, but never be complete. I my experience, persons of opposite Base end-up in endless unfruitful debates, just not in conflict.
Situation: one can be right or both can be wrong.

Now imagine a person C who has no universal opinion on the topic, but evidence that in particular cases one of the two is incorrect or unapplicable. This immediately dismisses the opposite universal view entirely, and that happens precisely because that view is universal. A single exception is sufficient to create strict opposition and self-righteousness in person C, which corresponds to our PoLR/Vulnerable function: the opposite universal simply cannot be accepted.
---

[1] - one thing is the idea itself, a different thing is if and how it applies.
[2] - refer to Kant's second conflict of transcendental ideas, in the Critique of Pure Reason.