Different presentations of mutual hindrance emphasize conflicting powers, conflicting wills, or incompatible willed outcomes. Treating these as identical obscures exactly what follows from each premise.
If the objects of two wills differ and one is unfulfilled, incapacity follows only when its nonfulfillment is genuinely attributed to defeat by a rival. If both agree from the outset, agreement alone proves no incapacity. And failure to realize a logically impossible object does not diminish omnipotence.
A rigorous theological argument must therefore clarify what conflict means, what powers range over, and why an outcome fails before drawing a conclusion about divine unity.