Here is another perhaps clearer way of presenting much the same thing. Different presentatons give emphasis to different habits and structures but they all describe the same processes, slippery though the are.
Any paradigm like this is useless without an accompanying set of rules. The model only depicts the elements from which vords are made. How they are made, how the elements combine, is governed by rules, or rather probabilities.
Yes, the model is misleading because it suggests all possibilities are equal, but it is only intended as a guide to the resources of vords. In fact, some possible combinations are far more likely than others. Indeed.
The template is not intended as a vord generator, but even so I don’t see it as a fault in the model that it might generate non-vords, or non-extant vords.
What of non-extant vords?
oltol occurs once, but oltor never.
Is there any hard and fast rule that eliminates oltor as a possibility? Arguably, it is not forbidden, it is just not present in our sample.
Similarly, qochol is to be found, but qochor is not, even though ochor is found 19 times and ochol only twelve.
okeel appears yet oteel does not, even though [k] and [t] are generally interchangeable.
Similarly there are any number of non-extant vords:
qopod
dosh
cheechom
dochor
qochor (yet chor occurs 527 times)
otolshy
keeral
dashaiin
otoro
qoteel
ochad
qotocho
All of them are conforming, and look the part, but none are in our text. It is a moot question whether they might exist in a larger sample. But they are not inherently impossible. They are possible vords. A template like this tells us that our text contains a selection of possible vords. It is not a fault that it does not eliminate all but the extant vords: it doesn't try to.