I'm not sure why but "on" seems to be the word everyone's sticking in the wrong spot lately. Can it fit in those places? Yes. Dose something else fit better? Usually.
It seems to be a gradual shift in grammar that's been changing for the last few years. For people like you and I, it's jarring and we hate it. For others, it's just how things are.
Relevant to the story, I've come up with a slightly conspiracy theory-ish notion: It's all Jack's shard's fault.
Think about it.
Amelia gets pissed off, joins forces with Taylor. They both go after Jack, and his shard, the
Communication shard, tries to figure out what's going on so it can nudge its host into action.
Unfortunately for it, somewhere amidst the communication, Amelia's Shaper shard and Taylor's Administration shard get to 'talking'. They know they're part of a bigger whole, that they're all supposed to work together. And hey, our hosts have this whole synergy thing going on, this is great! Administration gets more to administrate, and Shaper gets more to shape. All the conflict, all the use, everything they could want!
And then Amelia and Taylor make a group, and others join.
Sabah and Lily - Complete control over small objects and fucking Sting to use on them.
Missy and Theo - Warping of space and multidimensional armor/metal creation. Slides everywhere.
Emma and Zack - A thinker who can more or less understand any thinker's stuff and combine it into whatever she wants, and a guy who gets unlimited chances to use whatever she makes.
So...
What if Amelia and Taylor's shards, realizing that pairing up and the close connection their hosts have, have been encouraging the other shards to do similar things?
Sounds a little far fetched?
Lisa and Rebecca - Mental hax and physical hax. The ability to work everything out, and the ability to apply it.
It's all Jack's shard's fault.
Alternatively, this could just be a shard thing. But I like blaming Jack for the world possibly getting better, even if only by association.