Yes, @RonMakesSystems – I think you read me right. As I was hopefully reading you right, resp. latch on to what you were laying out and pointing to, principally.
The answer here by @mdubakov (and team elsewhere) would signal to me that a deeper ‘logical’ integration than we currently see is not in the conceptual horizon of Fibery – for the time being .
One thing is of course resources. The other thing is seeing whether the ideas/lines of thought generally register, or resonate.
So, for me this unfortunately rules out ‘investing’ in Fibery, as to me whiteboards (canvases as well as ‘maps’) are central places where knowledge is manifested and insight is generated.
So I need this to ‘register’ in the overall system to be useful, or link up to the rest in the best or most encompassing ways possible. As this kind of integrated information system really is the crux for me, in terms of sparking my interest in Fibery, and considering it. And whiteboards being a kind of ‘sideroom’ or ‘black box’ to the system would, for me, not generate any surplus vis-a-vis a situation, where I use separate and specifically aligned tools.
Then, this likewise applies to UI + UX logics and the integration with different functional architectures subtending them, resp. the knowledge-ergonomical process supported and scaffolded by them – which is the concern I read out of your initial remarks about the need to deal with the ‘epistemic’ split and hybridity of the (digital) ‘whiteboard’, nowadays.
So, thanks for clarifications here.
(Just for the records. You write
– can you link up those threaded discussions, resp. put a pointer to this up here? TIA! 
)