Problems with mutually exclusive and exhaustive typologies are structural, not case-specific.

Evidence

These are bound to be controversial claims. I illustrate the consequences of the standard typology methodology using the influential Geddes data set on types of autocratic regimes (Geddes et al. 2014). One might argue that one should not throw the typological baby out on the basis of one example. However, this chapter argues that these problems inevitably arise when doing typologies using the mutually exclusive and exhaustive rules. — Gary Goertz, Social Science Concepts and Measurement, 1197

Categorization

• SEED: Article angle: ‘The Typology Trap’ — why quantitative datasets built on nominal typologies (regime types, conflict types, welfare regimes) systematically misclassify borderline cases, using Geddes’s autocracy data as the test.
• XREF: Connects to the reader’s interest in how bureaucratic categories (colonial archives, censuses, DSM diagnoses) fail at the boundaries.