Its important to keep in mind that every planet is in aspect to every other planet in any given chart. And this applies even if relatively small orbs are used. Every function (planet) is part of the whole and cannot work independently of any other function.
So when we define a set of aspects and a set of orbs, we are drawing an arbitrary line between those planetary relationships which are experienced in a relatively immediate and compelling way by the native, and those which are not.
In any chart, Jupiter and Saturn must be balanced, regardless of whether or not they are within the designated orb of one of a particular set of aspects.
Liz Greene does use orbs which are unusually large by modern standards, using 10 degrees even for a trine - double the orb that most astrologers would consider for this 'soft' aspect. But she does note that aspects with closer orbs are more compelling, while those with wider orbs may need to be consciously cultivated to come to fruition. We can consciously cultivate a working relationship between any two planets, though.
Another point is that if we are looking at a traditional aspect with a very wide orb, while ignoring close higher harmonic aspects and midpoint contacts, then we may be using peripheral information in place of more fundamental information. This is why I am quite stingy with orbs, but usually have a quick look at the strongest factors in the higher harmonic charts and midpoint trees when doing a full reading.
I also think it is relevant when two planets are in the same sign, or signs of the same element or whatever, even if they don't form a traditional aspect.