This chapter begins by clarifying common metaphors of explanation, such as “mapping a territory.” Discussion then turns to specific limitations when the only “relevant” data available have already been aggregated to some degree of collectivity above per-person actors who are integral to the data as subject-object relations (i.e., whether conventionally defined as “objects of the study” or as “subject—aggregator, analyst, theorist, author, etc.—of the study”). Some illustrations are provided (e.g., analytical obscurities due to unexamined, and potentially entirely hermetic, compositional heterogeneities of the aggregate; erosions of trust eliminate information; oversold expectations from claims of technical proficiencies reinforce “know-nothing politics”). The chapter proceeds next with considerations of several conditions of aggregation process, among them: the weight of institutional form; relations of attention, selection, and abstraction; scaling effects, and factors of coordination. The final topic returns to genuine issues of “model vis-a-vis reality” such as the naïveté of assuming experience of reality without perception, or that the actual aesthetics of perception can be rendered neutral, as if one already knows the reality “as it is in itself” (e.g., Kant’s bridging effort in Newtonian mechanics vis-à-vis his categorical imperative).