Final answer:
The statement that all listed points are true of typification is false since typification does not inherently improve compliance with the "one fact one place" rule. Typification allows for variation and correlation in the creation of 'real' biological categories.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question asks about typification, which is related to the classification of organisms in biology. Typification indeed creates an association between a category and individual instances of that category and establishes an "is-a" relationship between a class and a superclass. However, where the assertion might falter is in the idea that typification necessarily improves compliance with the "one fact one place" rule, which is more a principle of database normalization than biological classification.
Finally, while it is true that typification can be appropriate when instances of a category share identical attributes of interest, the existence of identical attributes is not a strict requirement for useful classification, as variation and correlation between characteristics can enhance the 'reality' or justifiability of categories without making them any less 'real'.
Therefore, the assertion that all of the statements are true of typification is incorrect because typification does not necessarily improve compliance with the "one fact one place" rule, as this rule is not a key consideration in the context of biological classification but rather in the realm of information management and database design. The distinction between utility and accuracy is also essential, as classifications that are too rigid may not accommodate the complexity of natural variations.