 Despite Peirce’s own admission of doubts here, there is an ongoing concern among Peirce scholars to determine the importance of the later account and typology. Amongst the more positive positions in this debate, we see arguments that Peirce’s later typology is crucial to a full understanding and application of semiotics (see Quieroz 2012), or claims that it whilst underdeveloped, it holds promise and deserves serious effort and attention (see Houser 1992 and Jappy 2017). More pessimistic Peirce scholars hold that the typology is either incoherent (see Short 2007), or that as an increasingly narrow classificatory project, it runs counter to the more emergent and systemic properties of Peirce’s semiotics (see Lizska 2019).