> - You want status objects to belong to a class hierarchy (like single
> inheritance in OOP).

More precisely (if I understood correctly): you want a core set of
properties to belong to a class hierarchy which gives their meaning.

Other properties are auxiliary, nice-to-have, and can exist independent
of the hierarchy.

My position is: why can't we have more than one such cluster of
properties? Maybe you say that we can, but you'd still like one cluster
to be the main one and others auxiliary, perhaps dividing the main class
into subclasses (or convention into subconventions / set into subsets).

Maybe we should solve this by sketching examples of real use cases.