So I would propose it like this:
1. Conventional Nonexistence: The lack of any conventional existence. Such a character will exist as something beyond the normal scope of the physical and metaphysical worlds, instead existing as an idea or other unconventional state. Such entities can be conceptualized by individuals, but have never existed in a physical or normal metaphysical form, such as a soul.
2. Unconventional Nonexistence: The lack of anything except a presence on a universal abstract conceptual framework, such as Types 1, 2, and 3 as outlined by the Conceptual Manipulation page. If one imagines a metaphysical conceptual "list" of everything that is both existent and nonexistent, such a character would reside on the "nonexistent" section of the list. Such a character is bound only by conception, and has never existed as a possibility, idea, or any lower form.
3. Complete Nonexistence: The lack of absolutely everything, including presence on a conceptual framework of any degree. Such a state defies even the most basic logical principles and is unknowable in the truest form, as it is not a state at all. Such entities are typically presented as primordial voids or pure emptiness, or any abstract state which precedes or opposes the state of existence on all levels.
Though I can see why Type 2 might be unecessary. But I agree that a distinction between "nonexistent in relation to what we typically conceive as existence" and "completely nonexistent on all levels" is necessary.
