Modeling of (un)subordinated/senior debt seems muddled and wrong

[rivettp]

We have properties such as https://spec.edmcouncil.org/fibo/ontology/SEC/Debt/DebtInstruments/mayBeSubordinatedTo which imply a relationship between 2 specific instruments.
In fact subordinate (synonym junior) debt is a general classification that is contrasted with unsubordinate or senior debt.
For full detail see https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/subordinateddebt.asp
FIBO has several other properties related to "subordinate" or "senior", including https://spec.edmcouncil.org/fibo/ontology/SEC/Equities/EquityInstruments/isSeniorTo and several named "seniority" such as https://spec.edmcouncil.org/fibo/ontology/SEC/Debt/AssetBackedSecurities/CDOs/seniority.1 which are similarly muddled and need a systemic review.
https://spec.edmcouncil.org/fibo/ontology/SEC/Debt/AssetBackedSecurities/MortgageBackedSecurities/seniorTo has a definition that says "These will be removed from the final model".