Let me continue adding questions/thoughts as I get to them. All this I'm saying is just experimental in the sense of trying to speculate what this second type business is about. Basically the summary of my understanding is it's indeed a trunk of an elephant but possibly one worth classifying nonetheless.

Something occurred to me, which is related to this Krig the Viking post from earlier:

It should be pretty apparent by now, JohnDo, that tcaudilllgian Energy Metabolism types are different from Gulenko's DCNH subtypes/energy types.

From what I can tell, tcaud, your EM types have more to do with one's interests and social role, while Gulenko's energy types describe a more immediate, personal behavioural energy
He seems to be suggesting that the DCNH system and the energy type are far from unrelated in purpose. What occurred to me is that I think a lot of someone's "personal energy" vaguely should be related directly to temperament. And what occurred to me is the interesting fact that I think of the 4 Jungian dichotomies, two fit much better into correlations with temperament than the others, namely rational/irrational and introversion/extraversion. The other two somehow seem to be very different, because they really represent types of information. For instance, the difference between intuition and thinking arises in that the more an idea is translated into thinking, the more it is amenable to intellectual criticism - it is a fundamentally different form of information.
The way I see Jung's ideas on rational/irrational and introversion/extraversion is he translated them into more cognitive terms, meaning terms directly related to the nature of the information someone produces as part of seeking understanding. I see the MBTI's versions of judgment/perception as essentially the more lifestyle and temperament oriented traits, and ditto with their introversion/extraversion. DCNH seems to use the 4 temperaments sort of similarly (look at IJ - it's basically the rule-making, rigidity, conscience-enforcing type, and EP is the impulsive, active, creative type, etc).

Perhaps the way to represent the behavioral/personal energy of a person is to assign them a DCNH-like thing, basically a temperament type as the basic foundation, together with some additional somewhat more cognitive descriptors optionally, essentially based on the intelligence behind their energy prioritizations as I described above, and of course all this separate to their main information type, which represents how they assemble and understand reality cognitively.

I think funnily, almost anyone has a pretty well-defined temperament type, but people might be a lot less developed into a definitive cognitive priority pattern.

Also I realize this has been free flow, so feel free to suggest certain definite points of terminology to start working on clarifying or format that you think would be good to work through in a more organized way if things come to mind!