Evaluating different takes on integral theory

I've mentioned this Stein study before. Therein he did a Lectical analysis of JFKU grad students on how they framed the AQAL model in that particular context at that particular time. Note the chart on p. 5 of the levels, then the chart on p. 10 on the range of interpretations of the AQAL model in stages 10 through 13 (aka formal, systematic, meta-systematic, paradigmatic; or orange, green, teal, turquoise). The notion of a 'center of gravity' for levels is, irony of all ironies, GREEN relativism! And typical sophomoric interpretations of quadrants and levels are ORANGE!

Note the descriptions of a post-metaphysical take on levels and quadrants in level 13. That sounds like a few of the contributors to this and this forum. At least at certain times and/or in certain contexts! ;)
"At this level, reasoning about the quadrants involves a radical and quasi-transcendental multi-perspectivalism, which is made explicit in terms of a widely applicable post-metaphysical mode of meta-theoretical argumentation. In light of this background, attention is brought to the provisional nature of all methods and models, especially meta-theoretical ones. Integral Theory is broadly construed as a polycentric and evolving network of ideas catalyzed by certain highly normative principles and practices."

"At this level, reasoning about levels involves the adoption of a post-metaphysical stance toward the task of evaluating people. The provisional, bounded, and multi-perspectival nature of all models and methods is admitted and a set of meta-theoretical principles guides a recursive process of continually refining developmental models and methods in terms of both theory and practice. A broad and explicit philosophical discourse comes to supplement evaluate discussions concerning the notion of "growth to goodness," as the human potentials that characterize the highest levels
and the future of civilization are seen as collective constructions for which we
are responsible."