I prefer by far @rschmehl 's classification.
The main problem was the use of the terms “lift” and “drag”, confusing with their meaning in regular wind energy. These terms are not included in this classification, which has, in addition to defining the categories with understandable (and understood) technical terms, the advantage of being concise, fitting on a small page.
Now imagine that all AWE publications have to be re-issued with a new glossary. That would be adding confusion to confusion. As an example the Reeling 2.0, a variation to reeling energy transfer Kitewinder topic was not well grasped: the text on the drawing of the kite was: “hovering kite power design”. The clarity came later with the drawing of a propeller. Indeed the term “hovering” could only create confusion: we did not know if the kite was rotating (being stationary) or if it flied crosswind by a more or less stationary swept area (as for fly-gen, unlike that of a yo-yo system). Moreover the “reeling” term leads to an additional confusion between Kiwee-like and kite-reeling (reel-in/out (yo-yo)) mode. And Kiwee is not more a “rotary” AWE by the present classification…
So I wouldn’t do the “bound”.