Dread, that's not what I meant. There are too many people arguing that a character who is infinitely larger than Low 2-C or 2-A, or who sees them as small pieces, should be Low 1-C, and that's a huge red herring. I think you already know that.
That's what I wanted to say to most people in many revisions, I've always argued that the above is just support, should be should be supported by a statement of transcendence referring to ontological superiority or something like that, otherwise it's still 4-D.
Because I was fed up with the "See at 2-A or Low 2-C as a small structure and be infinitely larger than it = Low 1-C" bullshit.
My argument is not about you, my friend. I've given the green light to you. No fight or chaos.