Which of the seven fold reasons does this fall under?

Which of the seven fold reasons does this fall under? - The conventional self is not different to all its parts (is composed only of parts) but not the same as any part (does not depend on any part) This seems to get around the first two reasons, as well as being a reasonable description of my perceptual life; and, arguably, is a reason to think that the self cannot be destroyed (there is always another part to lose), given it lacks substance and cannot be annihilated. It seems to be completely coherent, so I can't imagine for a moment that no-one a Buddhist has ever argued with has conceived of the self this way. So, why is it wrong: and has any Buddhist claimed the conventional self is like this? ---------- Not just that every part has a part, but that every part is one part only.