I’ve suggested nonstandard readings of both Aristotelian matter and Aristotelian potentiality. While traditionally there is thought to be a loose analogy such that matter is to form as potentiality is to actuality, the two concepts as I am reading them are sharply distinct. Matter captures the accumulation of contingent fact. Potentiality captures counterfactually robust inference. Matter particularizes, while potentiality universalizes.
Potentiality seems to me to be a kind of form. This is a bit tricky, because an important classical sense of Aristotelian matter that I have not been emphasizing is associated with a disposition to respond in certain ways when acted upon. This, however, sounds like counterfactual potentiality to me.