That there are genuinely divergent and incompatible views on many ontological issues, and that consensus cannot be achieved by any simplistic approach of trying to merge or conflate them by simply inserting them into a single overarching classification. That reconciliations between divergent views are best achieved by looking for mutually acceptable mappings between them, rather than by choosing one over the other. That a generally useful ontological classification should be based on an attempt to discover orthogonal categories from which a useful lattice can be constructed, rather than on an ad-hoc initial tree, no matter how carefully based on some philosophical agenda. All of which, by the way, we concluded in 1998 in Heidelberg. They never have and they never will.
People disagree when there is reason to do so, People disagree for all kinds of reasons.
They arise from genuinely divergent, often deeply felt, convictions about the nature of reality, the appropriate way to describe it, and so on. You seem curiously unable to appreciate that there even are such differences. Maybe it would help if you were to state explicitly what your basic assumptions are about the SUO and the methodology that you and Ian are adopting towards creating it. For example, you seem to assume that all reasonable people can be made to agree, or at least their axioms can be. You sometimes seem to think that just by translating axioms into a common logical notation, they will somehow come to be mutually compatible.