Index: doc/generic_types/generic_types.tex
===================================================================
--- doc/generic_types/generic_types.tex	(revision 79b8dc383bfab842e3790a2d71f85fb491db40e7)
+++ doc/generic_types/generic_types.tex	(revision 1c38f5bb55ebc1de6c1c2ff5b860d4383c09dd2b)
@@ -962,4 +962,5 @@
 hence runtime checks are necessary to safely down-cast objects.
 The most notable difference among the implementations is in optimizations: \CFA and \CC inline the stack and pair elements into corresponding list and pair nodes, while the C and \CCV lack generic-type capability {\color{red}(AWKWARD) to store generic objects via pointers to separately-allocated objects}.
+% The most notable difference among the implementations is in memory layout of generic types: \CFA and \CC inline the stack and pair elements into corresponding list and pair nodes, while C and \CCV lack such a capability and instead must store generic objects via pointers to separately-allocated objects.
 For the print benchmark, idiomatic printing is used: the C and \CFA variants used @cstdio.h@, while the \CC and \CCV variants used @iostream@.
 Preliminary tests show the difference has little runtime effect.