Since abstraction is a gain, not a loss, moving to a space of possibilities described by combinable abstractions is not strictly a retreat to less structure. You're adding structure.

An ontic shift might require new values. Coherentification asks a question: what should my values be coherentified into? This is a question for a mind that doesn't yet have, laid out explicitly for zer, the space of possibilities over which the values would be "defined" / what the values would be "about".

Also consider "choice" and free will. From God's perspective, you're deterministic (actually this isn't true due to God still participating in logical time, all the way back to the logical beginning, but pretend). From your perspective, you are not.

A mental element can be provisional, and more specifically might want to point at reality through novelty via the context of an unboundedly creative mind. Such an element would refer to worlds that are not currently grasped, described, circumscribed by the current ontos. So saying that a belief "narrows down a space of possibilities" is putting cart before the horse. It is speaking from the perspective of God, who has already resolved all the relevant provisionality, explicitized everything needed to grasp the space of possibilities in question, and who can therefore say "here is the space of possibilities, and here is the subset indicated by the belief held by that mind". But a real mind, the one that we said held a belief, doesn't have those possibilities grasped. So it's strange to say that the belief narrows down possibilities from some space; or, we're talked about a narrow conception of belief.

See Mateusz Bagiński on scope (if that link is broken try https://flowershow-hermeneutic-net.vercel.app/).