As far as I can see, the only disagreement is to whether something like balance(equity/symmetry should be added. Not as a testing criterion, as many seem to think, but as a basic principle - which it may seem some would think is unneccessary, as it is so obvious.
We're looking for testing criteria? Why? Is someone about to form some sort of certification board, or litmus test for whether a given relationship is or isn't "real" poly?
I am not going to get into debates over individual things about what is, and isn't poly - I used to try to do that and got frustrated when I couldn't. I am merely trying to point out that, in my experience, trying to do so is folly, and I am willing to provide some counter-examples. I actually like
that we can't come up with some box-like definition of what is and isn't, or how it should or shouldn't work, or what the underlying paradigms are beyond it being loving, responsible non-monogamy. As an old debating "foe" of mine used to say, as soon as you draw a box around it, you exclude people who could otherwise feel included.
Maybe I missed something in a post (I am only on here a limited amount of time a day), but what is your motivation/need to lay things down this precisely?
So... what are we trying to do here? Are we trying to come up with recommendations for principles and paradigms of how most people find poly work well, or are we trying to come up with a set of criteria to define what poly should be? Because those are two very different discussions, and I am pretty confused. (Doesn't take much, I know!