Mario Nistri:
I'm on Jason's speculation line.
Also, since the precepts (in relation to the limited action part of the theravada model) are just determinations, and determinations get stronger with the path progression, it's quite possible that, if some has the precepts, after some paths they just can't happen to do somehitng that they so strongly formally resolved not to.
Similar thing might happen with bad emotions, just in this case, I'm talking of unintentional magick: the fact that you think that you can't experience some things might be enought to prevent thoose things from arising...
By the way, It also seems to me that many of the fetters are not so well defined, wich makes me think that some of them might have been thought as approximations of a trend of change, rather than an absolute absence of something... On a similar line of thinking, a very kind person might say "I never get angry", and with that meaning not that he can't experience anger, just that it's a very very rare occurrence.
However, I think that if we stick with the traditional view, 4th path doesn't even math stream entry; if we consider only the fetters, sakadagami seems to me to be the best match.
And then you get further significant game changing baseline shifts where one has to reconsider previously held definitions of 'craving' and 'aversion', the subtly of fabrication, the notion of 'fabrication' itself, the notion of 'attenuated' as well. How attenuated? What does 50% play out like? Does 'anger' still arise in some muted form but not get expressed in anyway as Dipa Ma claimed anagami to be like? Or is it completely absent in any manifestation, muted, shadow or whatever?
It's all up for grabs. Though I will say you give less of a shit where you are the further you go down the track till it seems meaningless to debate and fuss over it and how it is namarupally conceptualised, at least thus it has been so far for myself.