What I find is that such disagreements are not at all uncommon. Hence, when we encounter a symbolic representation of a process such as a front, it turns out that there may well be underlying disagreements about the term and its dynamical implications. I am arguing for the latter. Moreover, it's not just a matter of the credibility of the analyst, although it is certainly true that some part of the observed disagreement boils down to different competency levels. Even if we all agreed upon the definition of a physical process, it is a common characteristic of all atmospheric processes that they don't remain static.
Real processes are nearly always complex and variable over both time and space.
Thus, it might meet the definition of a front at some point during the night, but would fail to meet it at some point during the day. The indicated gradients are not particularly intense, especially in comparison with cool season standards. Furthermore, anyone who has tried to analyze surface charts often will find that features like fronts do not look the same from place to place, even at the same time. This sort of spatial variability is probably the rule, not the exception. Origins of conceptual models Conceptual models typically arise as abstractions.