I believe you have said that you feel the categories of "G/N/S" are a sort of taxonomy, and therefore suffer from all the limitations of taxonomical categorization. In addition, you've said that you "[...] don't think that the idea of Creative Agendas stands up after all, let alone G, N, and S as its representatives". Nevertheless, you do feel that the three modes are something real and can be used reliably (in this thread). I find it a little difficult to follow how something can be real and reliable, but yet simultaneously misleading and outmoded, or "stand up at all". I get the impression that you don't have more to say on this topic, however (although, if you do, please do!), so I can let that lie for now. (Perhaps you are talking about its utility to designers in the above quote, instead of its role as a theory?)
Here's my next question - and, hopefully, it's an area you will find more interesting to discuss, as well. It seems to me that you have moved from the idea of Creative Agenda, to a new paradigm - or, at least, are trying to do so. What is the successor to the idea of Creative Agenda? Or do you feel that abandoning it altogether is more fruitful?
In the Story Games thread about the Big Model (whence comes the quote, above), you said that you see the RPG theory world as having moved from "What is the point of playing an RPG?" (i.e. all RPGs are the same) to "Is this game G, N, or S?" (i.e. there are three types of RPG play) and now you are talking about the "object" of a game (which is unique to that game, and, further, applicable more widely than to just RPGs).
Is this your current "state of the art" on this issue? Is the "object" of a game (with the caveat that a game often has multiple objects, if I understand you correctly) the new "Creative Agenda"?
If so, how does thinking in terms of an "object" offer better tools for design (and play)?
I find it interesting that Creative Agenda was formulated as a social phenomenon - what is this group doing at this point in time with this particular activity? - whereas the idea of a game's "object" seems to be more closely linked to the game itself ("this game's object is to [...]").
Is thinking in terms of a game's design more fruitful for you (as a designer, after all!) than considering the creative priorities of the participants playing a particular game? The former seems to be focused on actual play and the individuals or groups involved (1), whereas the "object" view, perhaps, lends itself more to discussing the game itself and its constituent parts.
(1) My understanding is that the whole Creative Agenda model stemmed largely from an interest in resolving conflicts of interest and "fixing" instances of play which weren't working to the participants' expectations. I remember various Forge folks often saying that talking about Creative Agenda clash is a fruitful thing when you aren't happy with your game (to diagnose a problem or mismatched expectations); but, if you are happy with your group's play, you may be better off focusing on other things. It seemed to be framed - often - as a troubleshooting tool.