While that is an interesting way to look at the four throughlines, it is inaccurate. You could just as easily swap around those associations and it would be just as valid (and limited) a view of the throughlines.
In point of fact, EACH of those throughlines is ALL of those things (and more). You, as author, may CHOOSE to emphasize (and deemphasize) aspects of the throughlines as you relate them to your audience. Please do not mistake that the author’s choice to do so is indicative of the throughline’s purpose or nature – it is not.