The six-type taxonomy is demonstrated on preference (ice cream) and viability (fertility), which were not the disputed cases. Political values people fight about are then described as mixed packages that do not fit a single type. Typing those packages redescribes the fight; it does not reopen it.

Typing is the first cut that lets a mixed package be taken apart. Ice cream shows that some value-talk is taste, so "subjective" is not empty. It is not the claim that political fights are taste.

Equality is written as commitment plus who-counts plus causal effects, then dropped. Two readers can accept the mixed-package description and still not know which piece is in dispute, or what would recode a piece from promise to host-failure.

Naming pieces can start an unbundle. The remaining hole is the glue: "parasitic" versus "functional" still needs a meaning that is not "fails the host already chosen." If parasitic means fails civilizational persistence, the persistence wager is inside the unbundle.

Viability is objective only after host and horizon are named. Present voters and this decade leave furniture-burning feasible. Civilization and three generations do not. "You cannot choose the consequence" starts after that naming. A short window is a different named host, not a typing mistake.

"That's your value judgment" is often a refusal to grant civilization-plus-three-generations as the scored object, not a mix-up of ice cream with constitutions. The opener types that line as a category error about claim types.

Host-refusal can be who-counts, an explicit present-commitment, or the immune response the opener names. The category-error charge does not pick among those. The branch stops at that named uncertainty.

"Lineage or polity" are two hosts. Fertility under replacement ends a lineage. A polity can persist below replacement by in-migration. The slash copies a lineage constraint onto a polity.

The later TFR-under-2.1 sentence copies the same fertility number onto "civilizational persistence." The number stays with a lineage unless the polity has already been defined as that lineage.

The safety-versus-freedom example is typed as a time-horizon trick before the procedure that says to ask which type is in dispute. Who-counts and explicit present-commitment also fit, and the diagnostic box lists both. The lead example of the method arrives pre-typed.

The time-horizon section is then not evidence that typing works on mixed packages. It is a cartoon of one pattern. The hard cases remain equality, freedom, and tradition, which still do not fit a single box.

Bentham and Mill substituting pleasure for flourishing is asked to explain wireheading, hospice AI, and comfortable civilizational decline across two hundred years. That window contains many other substitutions. A bad vocabulary for "value" need not be the engine of decline.

The Bentham/Mill closer is a history-of-ideas punch line, not a cause. Drop it and the taxonomy is the same size: preference can be taste, viability is not, and host and horizon still have to be named.