i guess i write a lot in what ygolo proposes to be Te style, where "the thesis" is actually an anti thesis, a transfomation or translation of a commonly known concept and the part with "supporting evidence" will often include a discussion of how the common conception holds bad implications if applied to situation x or y, and how my initial thesis can explain how to deal with such situations without such implications. or sometimes the thesis is a description of the previous concept, then i show how it goes bad and why, then i will provide a solution and illustrate it with examples. i am often initially motivated to write something logical, when i have stumbled upon something that does not work/does not match reality, mistreats it. NiTe ... but NiFe is mostly the same, it just deals with ethical implications of acting or maintaining/moderating an order, being an example, while NiTe deals with logical implications of picturing something a certain way.
i am also fairly lost with typical books of what you propose to be an Ti example. it does not give me the big picture. what is it supposed to be good for? what it is trying to do to my position/view? where is it coming from? it's just claiming stuff, there. how does it dare? it can be digestible, if i have previous understanding of the type of "big picture" for which this is going to be of relevance.