As a split off from here.
Relevant external articles:
http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/columns/ruleslaw28jun01.html
http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/columns/elements20sep02.html

Is there an official Forge-Brand (TM) model for defining game component complexity?

I see a lot of complexity-ish terms (vanilla, pervy, rules-light, rules-heavy, crunchy, clean, elegant, etc)...but I don't see any uniformity.

If not, may I start?
Using terms based upon the above two articles (and modifications of Andrew's modifications to the design cycle terms)...in a wacky sort of matrix thingy...

Systems Elements:
Implementation: The actually mechanical bits (roll Stat + Skill)
Mass: Size of system/number of options (like the size of modifier/weapon/spell lists)
Strategy (Concept, Scope): The limits on strategic options (Go is more Complex in Strategy than Checkers, even though the number of rules are similar).
Setting: The size/options of the game world (meta-plot and setting detail would add to complexity).

Complexity Definitions:
Incoherent-Simple (Simplistic, Undefined): Empty, Not much to the System Element in question, poorly defined
Incoherent-Complex (Overly Complex): Too many options that are not coherently linked or necessary, easily 'munchkin-ized' by finding the hidden super-option
Simple - Functional, limited options, easy to sort through/learn
Complex - Functional, many options, harder to sort through/learn

Example:GURPS
Implemenation:Simple, Mass:Complex, Strategy:Complex, Setting:Incoherent-Simple (without source books, it has no setting)

Point me to a model, oh mighty think-tankers.