  Cancer progression and monotonic accumulation models were developed to
discover dependencies in the irreversible acquisition of binary traits from
cross-sectional data. They have been used in computational oncology and
virology to understand dependencies in the accumulation of mutations but also
in widely different problems such as malaria progression.
  These tools have been used to make predictions about future and unobserved
states of the system, identify different routes of feature acquisition in
subsets of the data, and improve patient stratification based on the
evolutionary trajectories.
  But these methods have shortcomings, in particular with respect to key
evolutionary assumptions and interpretations. After an overview of the
available methods, I focus on how and why the methods can fail and why their
inferences might not be about the process we intend. I first examine
interpretations and violations of assumptions when methods are used to infer
within-cell restrictions in the accumulation of events. The discussion uses
fitness landscapes and highlights the difficulties that arise from bulk
sequencing and reciprocal sign epistasis, from the conflation of lines of
descent, path of the maximum, and mutational profiles, and from the ambiguous
use of the concepts of exclusivity and alternative evolutionary paths. Next, I
suggest that users recognize the limitations that arise from their sampling
designs, and I examine how the previous concerns are modified when bulk
sequencing is accounted for. I also highlight how bulk sequencing can create an
opportunity for addressing dependencies that arise from frequency-dependent
selection. This review should help identify major standing issues and research
opportunities, and encourage the use of these methods in other areas with a
possibly better fit between entities and model assumptions.
