The term ‘quality’ traverses the depth-psychology corpus along two largely non-communicating axes. The first, and philosophically most sustained, is the Plotinian metaphysical axis, in which quality is rigorously distinguished from substance, activity, and Reason-Principle. For Plotinus, quality is precisely what remains when constitutive differentiation is subtracted from reality: it is a power that adds the property of being quale to substances already existent, never identical with the essence it qualifies. This ontological precision has direct bearing on soul-theory, since psychic qualities inhabiting body occupy an ambiguous threshold between the sensible and the intelligible realms. Rudhyar imports a related but transpositional usage into esoteric psychology, treating quality as the spiritual identity of a living whole — the temporal imprint that individuates a monad at the moment of its inception, making quality the very ground of astrological interpretation. The second axis is methodological and empirical: across the clinical literature in meta-analytic and systematic-review contexts, quality designates the formal rigor of research design — randomization, fidelity, attrition, replication — measurable by validated scales such as the MQRS, PEDro, or the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. These two registers rarely converse, yet both treat quality as foundational: one to ontological individuation, the other to epistemic credibility. The tension between quality as intrinsic character and quality as externally assessed standard runs as a largely unthematized fault-line through the corpus.