Martin (1992: 443-4):
Clearly, in longer texts, this pattern of macro-Themes predicting hyper-Themes can be extended, with hyper-Themes themselves functioning as macro-Themes in their own right… . Schematically, the thematic relationships being introduced here are outlined in Fig. 6.10, with the proviso that a text may be organised thematically around more than the three levels shown. As noted above, the lowest level hyper-Themes in a text are referred to traditionally as Topic Sentences and the highest level "macro"-Themes as Introductions.
Fig. 6.10. Solidarity across levels of Theme
 The field of Martin's discourse has again shifted from building a theory of language to prescribing the use of his model for the writing of coherent texts (pedagogy). Removing Martin's re-brandings, this sentence becomes:
Clearly, in longer texts, this pattern of Introductory Paragraphs predicting Topic Sentences can be extended, with Topic Sentences themselves functioning as Introductory Paragraphs in their own right.
 In SFL theory, these "predictions" correspond to non-structural cohesive relations — lexical and grammatical (reference) — between the wording realised in Introductory Paragraphs, the wording realised in Topic Sentences, and the wording of clause Themes.
 To be clear, in this model, the levels of "Theme" are the Introductory Paragraph, the Topic Sentence and the Theme of a clause. The top two levels, the paragraph and the sentence, are rank units of the expression plane: the stratum of graphology, whereas the lowest level, the clause, is a rank unit of the content plane: the stratum of lexicogrammar.
The re-branding of Introductory Paragraph and Topic Sentence as macro-Theme and hyper-Theme helps to conceal this theoretical inconsistency.