Naming this paragraph in such a way—though it is a fact that the employment of the word "innoduction" did not constitute, in itself, a lexicological sort of breakthrough, despite the fact that there was a clear attempt to score some points in this field when a hyphen was added halfway across the word "inno-vation" subsequent to the discovery of Roozenburg's \cite{Roozenburg_1993} work—was instrumental in providing a rough representation of what is conventionally meant by innovation: bringing about new arrangements or breaking new ground.
It should be noted, however, that a certain innovative character is present in the heading of this paragraph. So it is, from the very outset, considering that i) a unique path led to this case, which is shallower than Roozenburg's, although its chief result has been something as remarkable as bringing to know the work of Roozenburg; and ii) the establishment of the new term, in both cases, followed separate purposes.
In Eekles', an alleged fourth sort of inference was named, whereas in the headline of this paragraph, a radical degree of modesty could be presumed: from the beginning, the trajectory had been oriented solely towards a pedagogical purpose, being merely illustrative and indeed superficial, which could even be classified as a simple, infantile play on words in which the words employed become the core focus of an activity motivated above all for recreational purposes.
In any case, this essay shall not be charged for duplicating the scientific discovery of the word "innoduction." Nevertheless, one can perhaps only speak of scientific discovery in the case of Roozenburg, where the term serves to append a novel column to the tables of classes of inference, meaning to propose that the reality of an innovative and empowering logical formula is to be considered.
On the other hand, innovation cannot be duplicated, as anything ceases immediately to be innovative at a fundamental level, if not as soon as it materializes, then at least when it reaches the level of reproducibility. Afterwards, it will only be feasible to innovate in the uses given to the outcomes of previous innovations.
There has not been a duplication of the finding of the word, let alone the concept of innoduction. But even if it involved a duplication, not of the innovation, of course, but rather of the discovery of the word, it should be noted that there is nothing to be discouraged about. When portraying scientific landscapes, room should be made for the wise guidance provided by Ramón y Cajal \cite{ramon_y_cajal_advice_1999}, who found it invaluable to run the risk of duplicating findings, rather than dropping all efforts to carry out further research.
In no rightful way can inquiry be blocked, whatever the degree of probability of confirming either this or that hypothesis, unless there is no longer any doubt. As Peirce \cite{peirce_writings_1986} said in 1872, it is because uncertainty persists that the inquiry itself continues. By the time the doubts are dispelled, the inquiry can no longer last. In the Peircean sense, as Deledalle \cite{deledalle_charles_1990}  taught, the "irritation of doubt" triggers thoughtfulness, but there is a chance to settle down and attain belief, meaning what puts a limit to doubt.
However, that is not the case here, because treating the subject of this essay continues to overload the mind with uncertainties, much beyond what would be reasonable in delineating a course of inquiry. Whenever this is so, the mind becomes apathetic or way too clingy, overburdened by the universe where it is in, and its snout can be seen guiding its wide-eyed gaze in the face of an empty, nude void, akin to that of Goya's Drowning Dog \cite{prado}.
In dealing with innovation, naming it and hoping for it to be clear and distinct as to what is being referred to will not suffice. Acknowledging the lightweight definition in the first subparagraph of this essay may on its own assist any researcher in discerning that whatever pre-set arrangements or dogmas she/he comes across along her/his career are not holy or unchangeable, but rather potential sources of input that could be developed or exploited in more or less intelligent, innovative or even profitable ways.