A delicate issue concerns the strength of mental implication. Must every grasp of the principal meaning automatically and invariably evoke the concomitant, or does the discipline permit a wider relation? Bayān must be able to explain indirect figurative and allusive meanings.
If the only acceptable connection were one in which the two concepts could never be conceived apart, many established rhetorical uses relying on context would fall outside the account. A route involving relevant clues, reflection, and recognized usage is therefore significant here.
This does not license every accidental association as a necessary implication. A warranted reading still depends on a suitable relation, the linguistic practice involved, and the speaker's communicative purpose.