Of course development of structures also takes place with respect to the other primary modes i.e. affective and volitional though in the context of an intellectual approach it is justifiable to place special emphasis on the cognitive aspect.
However because ultimately all modes are interdependent the successful development of one requires corresponding development with respect to the other modes.
It might perhaps be worthwhile to say a little regarding the nature of development of these other modes at H1.
At a middle level (e.g. L0,H0) if I look at a beautiful flower - say a rose - the senses will be evoked through the recognition of the (exterior) object. Thus because the exterior is cut off somewhat from the corresponding interior pole the experience becomes somewhat localised being identified with the merely conscious aspect of experience.
However at H1, when I look at the flower, both exterior and interior aspects will be involved to a considerable extent in a mutual dialogue of meaning.
So now conscious recognition keeps switching in a dynamic flexible manner from exterior to interior aspect (and interior to exterior) in this more personal intimate exchange. Likewise because of the complementarity of (horizontal) opposites, the nondual spiritual aspect of the experience becomes much stronger. Thus the intimate experience of the flower in this I-thou embrace can radiate something of the mystery of the eternal Spirit. In other words it increasingly serves as an archetypal symbol of the divine.
So the affective is still necessarily involved but now in a more refined spiritually transparent manner.
Likewise - due to development of the volitional aspect - morality becomes much more refined at H1.
At the earlier level, morality can vary between two extremes (again dictated by opposite horizontal polarities).
Thus from the first perspective (programmatic) one may still subscribe to "objective" morality where actions are considered good or bad in themselves (much advocated by institutional religion!) The problem about this approach is that it leaves out the all-important interior dimension of what personally seems right or wrong.
The second perspective (permissive) is where moral decisions are largely based on merely subjective personal criteria (often relying on ego-based feelings). Here the wider collective basis for decisions and the need for social constraint can become lost.
At H1, because both poles are involved to a considerable degree of balance, moral decisions become spiritually motivated (through the sensitive voice of conscious). So one takes into balance both objective (impersonal) and subjective (personal) criteria. Then in any context one allows the voice of conscience, guided by authentic nondual spiritual desire, decide what is appropriate.