Complexity has been illustrated as a primarily numeric formulation, with implications solely in mathematics, and sometimes logic, and as a reserve fictional accounts. This is reflected in the limited number of philosophical problems which have been discovered, which, as general as they are, point towards a coherent system more than a mathematical one. The 'spheres' of properties or 'modal rooms' of experimental philosophy still point towards quantification, but in a way that implicates entities and consequently questions the assumptions of mathematics.
'Any damned rule' might refute some functional effect of mathematics, or at least raise the question that it is not a universal science.
The natural composite with coherency is complexity, but I feel this is un-grounded and un-honed perspective; it is more accurate to say that coherency as we know it embodies history, as described earlier (The Value of History in Philosophy), and complexity is a second rule which combines with a third, that is, perfection.
Instead of describing perfection at this point I would like to explain several things about coherent quantity. Although it is obviously a formal principle, there is no reason to believe that it is wholly explained by geometry or mathematics. It is, in my view instead, a quality science.
The second level, of complexity and perfection, gives in to the third level, which explains the modality of typology itself, in the form of comparing opposites. Knowledge of neutrals comes about through a determination that a neutral is dynamic, permanent, or constitutes a paroxysm (third category) or metadoxy (fourth category or more), that is, a logical extension of opposite properties into a further opposite.
Learning more about complexity depends on interpreting the pithy logic of coherence: (1) Neutrals are highly correspondent, (2) Quantification is mostly substance or definition, (3) Conclusions depend on the exclusivity of the set, (4) This system allows for the generation of variable-dependence by a factor of ^2, constant. Other systems may be better, but ostensibly depend on the context of information provided in this system.