OP, I still think the '100 item' issue is a red herring in living minimally. Don't panics' 'functional' definition doesn't work in terms of defining an item because it just depends on the level you want to define 'function' at; a computer has the function of enabling me to send an email, a keyboard has the function of enabling me to type, the 'A' key has the function of enabling me to type 'A' on the screen, the key itself has the function of producing one letter A, the spring has the function of returning the key for the next keypress, etc. So reductionism means the definition of 'item' is still not solved, you can scale down (or indeed up) and define a function at a different level of abstraction. You still have the problem of defining an item, but have simply shifted it to a different language in terms of 'function'.
But I don't think you need to reach an 'item' target to live minimally. I would think it would be better for you to explain what you are aiming to achieve and take it from there, rather than reaching an artificial item target with a bunch of ad hoc exceptions. Yes, 10 identical charging cables seems too many! Have you written a list of things you wish to keep in your minimal lifestyle?
But I don't think you need to reach an 'item' target to live minimally. I would think it would be better for you to explain what you are aiming to achieve and take it from there, rather than reaching an artificial item target with a bunch of ad hoc exceptions. Yes, 10 identical charging cables seems too many! Have you written a list of things you wish to keep in your minimal lifestyle?