Metaphysics discussion

I wonder if anyone following this book (as evidenced by some of the longest GR comments I've ever seen) would care to ruminate on a fine point of Aristotlean thinking for me.

This bit about how any entity which is actualized --that is, fully articulating its own potential--is not just perfect in-itself--but more perfect because it is prior to any copying. It either doesn't need to have any copies or subsidiary parts generated from it; or it isn't capable of having anything spun-off from it? Is it superior because it is its own full expression before any derivatives arise?

Example: if you have the famous Hope Diamond in your possession, splitting off tiny chunks of for re-sale, won't make 'miniature Hope Diamonds'. It would simply ruin the original by dispersing it into smaller crumbs. Those parts are not 'just as good' as the bigger part from which they came.

Meanwhile, the mere existence of the intact Hope diamond is fulfilling the idea of the Hope Diamond. Right? Both the idea and its incarnation are complete and discrete instances with no loose ends, extra pieces, or leftover appendages.

So, is this a kind of perfection wherein we might say 'the idea can't get any better ...because it is fully incarnated and can't evolve further past its own idea?'

Is it because it is 'whole' --through its inception to its realization and this then gives it the ability to conceive of spin-offs or pluralities which are necessarily 'lesser'? Less perfect? Or does this conversely make the thing better?

Goofy bonus question: any relationship in all of this to the energy/information effect mentioned by Pynchon in 'Lot 49'?

How is this all better said, exactly?