I agree that the right tool is important, but it’s critical to understand why the tool is there and to adjust expectations to accord with the stuff that a “dumb” tool does best.

It’s an artful balance, but I continually return to the side of simplicity over exhaustive “correctness.” I’d say time put into generating and maintaining multiple lists, categories, and facets can often be better spent on refactoring and simplifying the existing ones. (This definitely goes for me and my ontological library of shaded Entourage categories).

No matter how deep I get in taxonomy and “multiple locations,” I always return to the simplest single list I can handle. My secret temptation is always that some tool can do all the maintenance (read: “thinking”) for me, but ultimately, I still need to make decisions and be aware of “what’s where.” Adding a constant administrative layer and tending all those rabbits becomes its own endless project.

Anyhow. Not saying multiples, facets, or redundancy are necessarily bad—just that in my experience it can be a lot to maintain if it’s not paying consistently large rewards in enhanced action.