I don’t know what the video says(Haven’t watched it in a while and can’t look at it right now), and I don’t want to speak for Jim, but you can use it for any point, and if you don’t want to come up with multiple statements, you certainly don’t have to.
The reason these statements of conflict work is this. The mind isn’t looking at the MC or IC in isolation. And it’s not looking at any element on the table, like Pursuit, in isolation. Instead, it looks at the relationships between perspectives and elements. When the two are aligned, there is no conflict. But when the two are misaligned, there is conflict.
So when you have an MC problem of Physics, you don’t really have an MC problem with the process of Physics. What you really have is an MC inequity, or imbalance, between Physics and Psychology. The reason it looks or is treated like a problem of physics is because the mind is trying to bring the two into alignment and, in the process, decides there is nothing wrong with the alignment of Psychology. If there’s nothing wrong with Psych, then it only needs to deal with Phys in order to get rid of the inequity and find proper alignment. So that’s what it does. And it will find that it is able to move Physics into alignment (Steadfast), or it will find its justifications for moving Physics to be lacking and will instead work toward moving Psychology into alignment (Change).
But it’s not just doing this at the Domain level. It does this at all levels. So really, every time you make a choice about where your conflict is coming from you are making a statement of conflict (people need to Physics unless they need to Psychology). But since there are no limitations on storytelling, you can use one for domain and another for concern and another for Problem. Or one for MC and IC and another for the Os and another for the RS. However you want to do it.
Yes, as long as you show the physics to be The conflict that comes from Mind.