Some of us have grown VERY used to having icon.library coming from PeterK's IconLib 46.4 - with 3.1.4(.1) it works great still, but with 3.2 there are problems, the main one being due to version strings apparently. 3.2 uses 47 as major version for its icon.library, opposed to 3.1.4 which uses 45. To work around various trouble with AROS/AfA (from what I recall), the true color "TC020" variant of IconLib 46.4 is major version 51. The end result though, is that whatever in OS 3.2 that is loading icon.library (workbench.library v47 I presume) fails to load PeterK's icon.library if it is a 46.4.xxx variant, but still manages to load those that are 51.4.xxx, I suppose from the assumption that 46 <47 < 51 - so if your system is 020+ you can use for example the TC020 library, but if you're on 68000, you cannot use IconLib 46.4 anymore (unless you patch it to become for example 47.4.xxx instead of 46.4.xxx). Sad sad sad.
But why would anyone on a 68000 use IconLib 46.4 in the first place? Well, first and foremost - SPEED - on slow systems you can really tell the difference - maybe magic has been applied to icon.library v47 to make it super fast as well, but I doubt it. And secondly - all the "helper" programs - some for "cosmetics" others for work-arounds in both software and hardware. I have grown used to having outlines and shadows on my workbench icons, does at least 3.2 offer this?
I find it a bit strange that there seems to be NOTHING in the OS 3.2 FAQ about IconLib 46.4, as it this is a version of icon.library that has been more or less dominating for many years now, and included in the oh so perfectly legal 3.9 boingbags 3+4 of certain official OS 3.2 wingmen.
For sake of entertainment, I attach a screenshot showing shadowed icon text, the most awesome Amiga icon style, and also showing how Hyperion only pwnz 2018 when Con-handler is loaded (yes, version 106.2 - CLEARLY this little piece of software has been under development since the 70s to reach such a high major version!)
(oh, and there is bug or ...eh... feature challenges with "Prompt" - as you may tell from the screenshot, I use a multi-line prompt (which probably just works by pure coincident, and not by design), and the "bug" is that variable expansion in prompts only work on the first line. In the 3.2 FAQ, the word "prompt" is only mentioned once, and not at all in relation to the shell or C:Prompt, so whether this is known bug/feature or not, I cannot tell)