For example, take these four notions:
Creation by rearranging/ordering prime matter (AKA from preexisting substance).
Modal "toggling": switching mere possibilia to actualitas?
The first three seem correlated with types of founding relations: preexistent creation is well-founded, emanation is looping/Quinean (esp. in a pan(en)theistic setting), and exnihilation is either from the void relation or infinitely-descending.
On the other hand, destruction-of-nonexistence as a sort of "reified" double-negation elimination seems (3)ish, too (though note the theme in deep antiquity of (1) as a "victory over chaos"), unless we separate Apollyonic creation-by-destruction, as void-founded, from descending exnihilation by the Form of Creation. Moreover, I'm not sure where to fit intellectual intuition (Kant's technical definition of divine creation𓆣) into this scheme: is it generic over the other direct options?
𓆉I have in mind the doctrine, among some antenicene Christians (notoriously Arians), that the Son was especially emanated from the Father, hence still created in some sense preclusive of strict deity on the Son's part, yet otherwise as if all the fullness of the Father's deity was embodied in another form. Perichoresis seems cofoundational more easily, without indicating that the entities in circumincessio are created by each other. Otherwise, circular sets can be either finite or infinite in some capacity. So whether all emanationism corresponds only with cofoundationalism, is not decided in favor of the correspondence strictly speaking, since as per Conifold's example of Plotinus, we seem to be speaking of a hyperfoundational relation also or instead.
𓆣Kant uses the phrase "intellectual intuition" in the Transcendental Analytic, e.g. here:
... an intuition different from the sensuous ... [which is] an intellectual intuition...
The transcendental definition of sensation is from its passivity, as opposed to the spontaneity or proactivity of understanding and reasoning. So intellectual intuition is the Agent Intellect of Aristotle's (and the scholastics), who suggested a divine character for such a force.
Kant also refers to this "faculty" as an intuitive understanding:
... I cogitate an understanding which [is] itself intuitive (as, for example, a divine understanding which should not represent given objects, but by whose representation the objects themselves should be given or produced)... [emphasis added]
Accordingly, via divine unity, there is no difference between God's way of knowing the things It creates, and Its will in creating them; there is no difference between intellectual intuition and the act of divine creation.