Of course, these are pretty basic in contact as well. When traits found, and traits preferred seem to be at stake. These abstract and in essence from situation to situation different traits count way more than the levels of more concrete traits. It is in psychology certainly an overstatement that we can agree about certain traits that count always and in every group. Yes, group do differ but they are not a sum of certain direct measurable traits that have validity.
So the preference landscape consists of traits that are different and foremost different used from relation to relation. This fact is congruent. The problem lies actually more in the fact that we give responsibility to the evolutionary level which is derived from the preference landscape. I don't master the evolution theory, but if I get it right it is all about groups. Collectively groups survive over other groups. Surviving of the fittest species is where it is all about. Of course it seems logical that sick individuals will not form groups themselves. They die out as an individual. So it is about being best adapted within the species.
A clear operationalization about what the evolutionary level exact means is very important. Clearly is stated that the relationship doesn't lead to a new mate. Since this is the subject, still. There is something fake about the relationship, this is possible even if you have the same traits. Some difference can be not operationalized. People make choices also in their current life situation. So, now, it doesn't seem to be plausible at all.
But the missing link between the preference landscape and the evolutionary level doesn't mean that there is no link with the end of a bond and the evolutionary level. Maybe it is so that in the case of perceptional difference there is clearly difference in concrete traits. This does not mean the end of the bond per se, although maybe more probable. In this condition a new friendship would mean there is less evaluation noise, and thus maybe no danger of the evolutionary level. For what reason may remain a question, but the abstract traits can still count in.
At the other hand. When there is no perceptional difference but still preferential difference, and leading to the end of the friendship. There is no perceptual noise, but there is evaluation noise. The same abstract traits can be taken into account. But here there is an overload of the evolutionary level. So the evolutionary level is most psychologically and interesting when traits are more abstract. Geoffrey Miller?
Still it is unsure what to give in as the self-organizational process. What kind of uncertain variable would determine the end of the relationship. I don't know how to answer this right now, but it has to do with those two conditions and those two kinds of noise. The false positive value in the perception noise condition and the false negative in the evaluation condition. In the first there is, disturbance by traits (concrete traits). In the second, there is, disturbance no disturbance by traits (concrete traits). But in each case the reverse is measured, of course. This model, in other words, still overestimates the power of traits. Because the importance of the perception noise. Just a model, but it is still reductionistic. It fails in its approach!