I think I make things that are already at their own K-complexity. Like, you *can* summarize them, but the summary will be unusable for the thing's own ends. Least-fixed-point construction.
Actually this explains why I can't do marketing? "The thing's own ends" are only knowable by using the thing, which means any summarization is lossy, and I can't do lossy morphisms. Point of fact, I only do conductive morphisms, i.e. a relay chain of the same 3D fiber through everything, the same fiber you rode in on. Summarizing a prospective journey is, to me, a contradiction in terms.
A 3D fiber explores 3D fibration-space (if one of those three dee's is a control port with network feedback, in a nested token ring kind of way, 2+1 dee's, though that +1 itself unfolds as far as you care to look), but in dramatic-as-in-*dramatis* terms in such a scenario the fourth wall is *intrinsically* broken. Think: how do you think you got in there in the first place? A door, if well-formed. A crack, if not. The defining fact of a space is your entrance to it; the defining factor of a space is your exit from it. To me, a safe space is one where the manner of your entrance is the primitive everything else can be built from - *including* your exit.
(I've come to conclude that existence is a safe space.)