The Sefirot may appear in opposite likenesses even simultaneously. Both are true representations.
The Sefirot can appear in contradictory likenesses at the same time, and both are valid — because no likeness is identical with the Sefirah it depicts.
Op. 7 said the Sefirot have no intrinsic form and appear in many likenesses. Op. 8 takes this to its sharpest implication. Different prophetic visions — and different passages in the Lurianic tradition — sometimes describe the same Sefirah in opposite ways. Klach's reader needs to know how to receive this without thinking the tradition is contradicting itself.
The ARI's writings (Etz Chayim and the rest) repeatedly describe the same cosmic structure in apparently incompatible terms. One passage may speak of a Partzuf as having a particular face; another passage describes the same Partzuf with a different face. To a careful reader this looks like a contradiction. To Ramchal it looks like exactly what one would expect, given Op. 7's claim.
If the Sefirot have no intrinsic form, then any likeness in which they appear is one valid mode of appearance — not the only one, not the right one, not the true one in some way that excludes others. Two true likenesses can stand simultaneously, even when they cannot be visually combined into a single image. The contradiction is in the visual, not in the underlying reality.
This is more than a clever resolution of a textual tension. It establishes a methodological rule that runs through the entire second half of Klach: when two passages of the tradition appear to disagree, look for the operational stance that each presupposes. Different stances illuminate different aspects of the same structure; both stances can be valid; the apparent disagreement is the artefact of forcing them into a single picture.
The practical effect for the reader is permission. You do not need to harmonise every Lurianic passage you encounter. You need to understand what each passage is doing, and let the underlying Sefirah — which has no intrinsic form to be contradicted — be revealed differently in different texts.
This methodological move is the seed of Op. 109, which states a general rule of Partzuf-pair interrelation in two modes: chain of development and clothing. The same fact (one Partzuf relating to another) shows up two ways depending on which mode you are reading. Op. 8 plants the seed; Op. 109 generalises it.