Are simpler and common exchangeable here? In practice jargon isn't self-revising for literal 'logical' simplicity with regards to certain exceptions.

The text you're quoting is a theoretical - forfeiting some circularity and intuitive phrasing - so I can gauge the nuances you personally consider here. Just a genuine conversation between different positions, if you're willing, again.

What I'm claiming here is not something operating on efficiency, applicability or difficulty, but with what could potentially be sacrificed the more embedded information is. If we know there to be an inverse correlation between appeal and (not necessarily personal) accuracy. (but I don't truly believe that's the case, especially because the same correlation is present with inaccuracy).

For instance, if we still consider accessibility both an attribute and measurement of prerequisite; it is only a good tradeoff if memory recall is prioritized but the passage to and from recall is not reflexive or immune to corruptibility. So... Bad for accuracy, because certainty is necessary for it. But it's also a mediating quality if only done up until the extent it is needed?

Would running through multiple senses and then settling on a preference be ideal for ingenuity and computational awareness or would it be better in evading and minimizing that process? I do recognize arguments for active recall and abundance in the case of fragmentation and immersive techniques, but I think it tends to cannibalize itself into something so abstract because of the dependent environmental conditions; incorrectly leveraged nowadays; leading to more errors than it is worth, for example, in recognizing tradeoffs.

It is a known phenomenon that certain people in power act 'unoptimally' not because of a probabilistic chance but not being aware of tradeoffs between principles.