A&M: "A&A seem to treat a case of (mere) causal interaction as a case of coupling."

Maybe it seems as though we treat coupling as just causation, but I'm not sure why.  The idea is to see, first of all, that causation is an insufficient basis for constitutive claims.  All apparently agree to this now.  Then, in two chapters of our book (chapters 6 & 7) we look at a variety of ways in which one can add further conditions on mere causation in hopes of establishing a constitutive connection.  What do folks think we are doing in those chapters, if not examining (and challenging) other interpretations of what coupling could be and whether such coupling establishes a constitutive connection?