It is argued that (1) the halo-model of Micko is probably too restrictive to fit empirical data, (2) the model misrepresents unrelated percepts as bipolar structures, (3) all variations will probably be interpreted as qualitative, (4) the model requires all dimensions to be bipolar, (5) interpretations of orthogonality of factors and of factor loadings become problematic, (6) the halo may be regarded as a sort of “surface variation,” (7) the common part of two percepts is inadequately defined, and (8) the opposite part of two percepts is neglected.