That is, this is an instance of a diagram that you'll see repeated over and over in business texts; I personally call it a "fourbox" but I suppose "business matrix" is more common and "quadrant analysis" or something like that is even more descriptive. The idea is that you identify two different things, graph those as separate axes, label the quadrants and then tell a story about the four different labels. The Eisenhower matrix is the usual example (one axis is how close is the deadline, near vs far, the other is how much is lost by missing the deadline, a little vs a lot. The immediacy is called "urgency", the stakes are called "importance," things that are important-and-urgent should be done by you now, things that are important-not-urgent should be scheduled, things that are urgent-not-important should be delegated to someone else, and everything in the last quadrant should be safely ignored).
A "true" fourbox in my view should tell a particular story, which I call "cynefin flow" after a different iconic fourbox that told this story compellingly. According to this flow, there should be motion in a circle about the center of the axes, except that it gets interrupted at one transition between the quadrants and becomes stuck in a U-shape, unless some outside stimulus pushes it over that edge. So there is a motion I -> II -> III -> IV around the quadrants but then things get stuck in IV unless an outside stimulus pushes it back into I.
The cynefin story for the Eisenhower matrix ends with things getting stuck in not-important-not-urgent, so that is your IV quadrant. Of the two stories you can tell from there, the more compelling story is that, "Things that are important but not urgent, become important-and-urgent as the clock runs down, but then the deadline will pass and the pain becomes a sunk cost and they become unimportant-and-urgent, only to eventually fade to being unimportant-and-not-urgent, until an external stimulus acts to suddenly attach additional stakes to them and make them important again." So you have a bill (I), that bill comes due (II), you miss the deadline but still have a chance to pay it (III), and finally it gets sent to collections and impacts your credit (IV). And it sits there until either the debt expires or you're trying to get a new house, in which case it becomes Important again (I) to clean up your credit history.
Similarly with the BCG matrix, which is a fourbox with your capture of a market on one axis, the market's growth rate on a separate axis. Then the businessfolk carefully write "cash cow, question mark, star, dog" on each of these four quadrants. But what makes it a true fourbox is that your "question marks" that you invest in become "stars" as you capture their markets, then become "cash cows" as growth dries up, then become "dogs" as the market itself stagnates, until some external stimulus creates the opportunity for growth and more question marks again.
OP's diagram has "work intensity" on one axis, and a sort of "idealism-vs-pragmatism" axis for the other, and they have identified the intense pragmatist as naturally falling under a Cynefin flow into being a coasting pragmatist as they burn out. Presumably this is the accumulation point and those are the III and IV of the system, in which case some external stimulus causes coasting pragmatists to become coasting idealists, at which point they will naturally become intense idealists as their aspirations come to the fore, and then naturally become intense pragmatists as the organization fails to reward their idealism?