TLDR
If you can say that X is just Y but _, it isn't a good design.

Every form detail must be answerable. A bezel at a specific distance, a material composition reworked, a bottom emblem reduced; None of it can ever be arbitrary. A form without reason is a failure, regardless of its beauty.

That's also why a different layout for an existing design will never happen.
A follow-up that iterates on a previous conviction makes the conviction just an aesthetic, a theme.

Take Optica — a 60% built around the argument that a surface could guide the eye, that viewpoints could intentionally begin and end. That argument was made physical through carefully measured organic curves, a lens that made you appreciate the intricacies of modern materials. The 60% form factor wasn't a constraint, but the delivery mechanism for that specific obsession.

That argument is now complete.

A series isn't just the same philosophy in different sizes. Each expression in a series exists because the philosophy demanded it, because there was something the previous form couldn't say.
The new work earns its place by answering a question the last one was not built to.

A sequel inverts that. It starts with the form factor and works backward. The 60% did well, so a TKL follows!
And then you get the design language applied like a skin over a stencil;
The conviction becomes costume.

I have no interest in making sequels.

Each design is a separate argument, an evolution in perspective.
There will be traces of past obsessions across them, but they will never look to answer the same question as what came before.

What that means for you: when you hold one of these, you're holding a complete thought. Not a variation. Not a platform. Every decision in it was intentional, and will not be made the same ever again.