An analogous question can be posed for pretty much any "topological" set theory. My specific focus on $\mathsf{GPK_\infty^+}$ is simply due to the fact that it is the topological set theory which seems most natural to me at the moment; I would be interested in answers for (non-contrived) other choices of topological set theories as well.
An analogous question can be posed for pretty much any "topological" set theoryEDIT: It occurs to me that there is a natural candidate "good result," contra my ornery expectations. My specific focus onGiven subclasses $\mathsf{GPK_\infty^+}$$A,B$ of a model $\mathcal{X}\models\mathsf{GPK_\infty^+}$, say that $A$ is simply due tointernally Wadge reducible to $B$ ($A\le_\mathcal{X}B$) iff there is some set function $f\in\mathcal{X}$ such that $A=f^{-1}[B]$. Internal Wadge reducibility (unlike definable Wadge reducibility) plays well with $\mathsf{GPK_\infty^+}$, in the factsense that it is the topological set theory which seems most naturallatter proves (in the appropriate sense) that anything internally Wadge reducible to me ata set is again a set. This motivates the moment; I wouldhope that the following could be interested in answersequivalent for subclasses (non-contrived) other choices$A,B\subseteq\mathcal{X}$, for at least some wide class of topological set theories$\mathcal{X}$s:
$A\le_\mathcal{X} B$.
In every nice extension $\mathcal{Y}$ of $\mathcal{X}$, if $B$ is a set then $A$ is a set.
While it's not my main question, I'd be interested in any comments re: the plausibility of this situation as well.