The diagnostic criterion from DSM-5 clause - "regardless of their actual value" - is a fraudulent / misleading / ambiguous / subjective clause, because
* "actual value" is a subjective projection by the observer, disenfranchising the keeper's own valid, multi-layered value assessment ; I have demonstrated the relative, multiple and non-inherent nature of "value" to complete satisfaction.
* the "regardless" clause can be demonstrated to be false if the subject does discard anything ( "The kitchen garbage bin / recycling bin test" - show me what the subject does discard - if anything, this demonstrates the "regardless" clause to be false )
In truth, this is only interesting for us, those aiming to be critical about the framework, as in practice the clause is effectively understood to mean "regardless of value as judged by the interlocutor / the one making the diagnosis" - author / expert / researcher / practitioner / family member.
This is what I call Presumptive Valuation - presuming there is a universal, generally accepted value that applies, and presenting whatever convenient perception as The Value, while glossing over everything else.
Detractors contesting this will certainly be dwelling on any of - repurchase value, resale value, storage cost, purported lack of immediate usefulness of a given object, or most objects, or the dysfunction in possessions, all of which are also fallacies, a strawman argument.
Generally, experts and non-experts alike are playing it fast and loose with applying even their own very dubuious DSM-5 definition, interpreting it liberally, or simply assuming it applies in each case.