1- I hope they won't approve unless they come up with a better alternative.
2- More like all current High 1-A characters will be pushed into 1-A to somehow get rid of that story of High 1-A+ type 1 and High 1-A+ type 2.
On that matter permit me to share my full opinion here, since OP on the post couldn't follow the points I was making (Or rather, he didn't want to argue with a nobody?). For a rapid breakdown, his proposal consists of shifting High 1-A tier into 1-A+, next shifting High 1-A+ type 1 into High 1-A and High 1-A+ type 2 into just High 1-A+. Now I don't think the issue can be resolved this easily without redefining the whole tier system's core logic. This brings us to this problem.
Here in his problem statement he said this:
"For some reason, there is also an almost meaningless distinction between the current 1-A and High 1-A tiers, which generally ends up confusing people. High 1-A is not really above 1-A in the intuitive sense that it should be. Rather, it is an arbitrary distinction that is practically defined as a framework transcendence difference applied to a cosmology that is already 1-A, meaning a 'meta qualitative' level."
According to him, framework transcendence as core logic to justify a jump in tier isn't enough and that would leave more than one confused because that's explicitly the logic every tier in this system uses from my observations.
This is concerning because framework transcendence or the act of transcending the entire governing logic/algorithm of the previous tier is explicitly the foundational mechanism the system uses for tier advancement across every level from lower tiers all the way up, and this logic is not arbitrary or limited to the 1-A range. It is the system's consistent way of marking categorical (qualitative/kind) jumps rather than mere quantitative extensions. For example, to make it easier to visualise, lower tiers move from finite dimensions to infinite (1-B), then to transcending dimensionality altogether into qualitative superiority (1-A). Within 1-A, layers represent further qualitative transcendences within the same framework. The jump to High 1-A is meant to be the next true framework shift, transcending not just individual qualitative layers but the entire algorithm or logical structure that defines 1-A hierarchies (meta-qualitative superiority).
This pattern of transcend the whole prior framework provides internal coherence from my point of view where each major tier boundary establishes a new ontological domain with its own rules, while "+" modifiers typically represent the maximum extension within that domain (infinite layers or peak power inside the same logic). The proposal disrupts this by absorbing the first meta-framework shift into an expanded 1-A, making higher jumps which feel like continuations of the same broad framework rather than fresh categorical transcendences.
As solution he then proposed this:
"The current High 1-A would be included within the new 1-A. This is because the distinction between one tier and the other is arbitrary. One could argue that the difference is 'large enough' to justify separating them, but that objection does not make sense, because the difference between High 1-A and High 1-A+ is, for all practical purposes, just as large as the difference between 1-A and High 1-A+. Therefore, the distinction does not really help. In this way, the new 1-A would encompass all qualitative transcendences, meta qualitative transcendences, meta meta qualitative transcendences, and so on, while High 1-A would be reserved for characters who are at the highest possible level in relation to the previous tier, giving the distinction (and the 'high' prefix) more meaning."
Now I see issue here due to the double standards. He argued framework transcendence isn't significant enough to warrant a change of tier from 1-A to High 1-A but still according to him there is enough gap for a character being able to actualise arbitrarily large worlds vs those embodying it to the point where they can respectively be awarded a High 1-A and a High 1-A+. Other than for practical use, what's even the difference between both of them ? They have the same range and powers with the only difference being their state of being: one is the framework itself, while the other one participates in it, but on paper they do the same thing. This doesn't fit very accurately how the "+" modifier has been used in lesser tiers as everything point they designate the maximum amount of power someone could reach in a given particular framework (again marking how categorical/framework transcendence has been the root mechanism for initiating changes in tiers).
In the case of High 1-A and High 1-A+ there is no significant change in powers, nothing added and nothing removed. The tier here (High 1-A+/High 1-A) are just reduced to indicators pointing in which state of beings said characters capable of actualising arbitrarily large worlds operated.
Well this straight away brings us into another issue, because going by this logic, I don't even see the need of any tier beyond 1-A for a simple reason The framework that the new 1-A covers extends even to High 1-A+. The High 1-A+ is in fact logically just an extension on the tier 1-A. Let me clarify what that means or how i reached there. Current High 1-A is a shift into meta qualitative superiority and by adding that the processes of meta, meta meta qualitative etc is included into 1-A tier as Op wishes, this automatically means the new 1-A is the space of logical space and that's the paradox because OP still claimed logical space is High 1-A+ or High 1-A but believes the process or infinite progression (meta, meta meta, meta meta meta qualitative superiority etc) is just 1-A+ going by his standards and personally that's some crazy idea from a logical standpoint.
In the end, all we get is a disruption of the system's internal logic by downplaying framework transcendence from 1-A and above, while still retaining the "+" modifier (which is basically the limit indicator within a particular framework, implying that going further requires a change of tier). In fact, High 1-A+, High 1-A and 1-A become metaphorically a single tier with three different names. That's even a worse state than the current system. I ain't agreeing to that kind of half assed solution unless they fix the corners into something less messier.
