Single Comment

But the F and D moves of the Fox are a rather non-intuitive consequence of the general description, so I would not consider it bad if it needed to be mentioned separately. (As the textual description indeed does!)

Imo the explicit mention in the description (which is also erroneous as it omits the nD move — though the diagram includes it) is only because humans aren't used to counting to (or from) 0(!) — after all he does call it a length‐0 bishop move, so from the piece design POV it probably is the more intuitive.

(and perhaps after C and Z?)

At that point surely it's not much harder just to support an arbitrary leaper atom as the first stage?

For Q after N we would have a problem, as it is not clear anymore whether the most-outward direction is the adjacent diagonal or orthogonal slide.

Since both Rook and Bishop each have an outwardmost move after N, wouldn't it make sense at that point to just treat Q as a compound of R and B? So that [N?fQ] (I quite like the question mark too) would be a slip‐gorgon (slip‐gryphon + GA Unicorn=slip‌‐manticore). Presumably the diagram would have to do the dissociation ‘by hand’ and oddities like [K-fC-fQ] stop behaving intuitively unless one preserves state from the K step by also decomposing C (differently depending on how the K starts — though a human would probably be confused by this one too!)

(N and B are not 'commensurate' atoms, and it would use NN in the second leg)

I'm guessing the likes of [W-NN] are out of scope for now? :P let alone [W-CC] which camel moves can't emulate at all…