Should the presented points by different referees within the LoRs be convergent or divergent? Assume a graduate applicant, has who informed two faculty members as referees, for presentation of the acquired Letters of Recommendation.

Every referee mentions some points about the applicant, based on the acquired acquaintance with him/her.

There are two possibilities:


Both referees talk about the same points regarding the applicant, approximately.
For example, both assert that he is egregious. (The ideas are overlapped and the points are converging.) In this case:


In this case, one could conclude that as two people has asserted the same points, so the applicant would be supposed to possess that property.


Referees' points are completely different in a compared manner. As an instance, the first one talk about the applicant's innovation in research and the other one indicates his/her temper to help the others. (The ideas are far from together and the points are diverging.)


Therefore, one could realize more diverse ideas about the applicant's personality.

Now, in view of the admission committee, which of the above mentioned scenario would be more effective and profitable for the applicant?!...
With due attention to the applied consulting with some experienced faculty members my final conclusion is that a mixture of the convergence and the divergence better be taken into account within the LoRs.

In other words, the investigator of the LoR is not eager to read all repetitive points about the applicant within the different LoRs, neither be distracted by the bombardment of the many non-overlapping points from different referees, will which not lead a coherent imagination from the applicant.