  [HHM20] discovered, for 7 pairs (C,D) of seemingly distinct standard
electoral control types, that C and D are identical: For each input I and each
election system, I is a Yes instance of both C and D, or of neither.
Surprisingly this had gone undetected, even as the field was score-carding how
many std. control types election systems were resistant to; various "different"
cells on such score cards were, unknowingly, duplicate effort on the same
issue. This naturally raises the worry that other pairs of control types are
also identical, and so work still is being needlessly duplicated.
  We determine, for all std. control types, which pairs are, for elections
whose votes are linear orderings of the candidates, always identical. We show
that no identical control pairs exist beyond the known 7. We for 3 central
election systems determine which control pairs are identical ("collapse") with
respect to those systems, and we explore containment/incomparability
relationships between control pairs. For approval voting, which has a different
"type" for its votes, [HHM20]'s 7 collapses still hold. But we find 14
additional collapses that hold for approval voting but not for some election
systems whose votes are linear orderings. We find 1 additional collapse for
veto and none for plurality. We prove that each of the 3 election systems
mentioned have no collapses other than those inherited from [HHM20] or added
here. But we show many new containment relationships that hold between some
separating control pairs, and for each separating pair of std. control types
classify its separation in terms of containment (always, and strict on some
inputs) or incomparability.
  Our work, for the general case and these 3 important election systems,
clarifies the landscape of the 44 std. control types, for each pair collapsing
or separating them, and also providing finer-grained information on the
separations.
