Although not possible in English, Case, agreement, and A-movement dependencies spanning across finite clause boundaries, such as Hyperraising (to subject or object) or Long-distance agreement (LDA), are found in many languages. An important methodological feature of works on Hyperraising and LDA is the distinction between cross-linguistically restricted true A-dependencies across finite clauses, and generally available binding like dependencies as found in Prolepsis configurations. However, the distinction is not always easy to draw, and since the languages for which Hyperraising/LDA have been attested are quite diverse, the diagnostics often cannot be compared directly. The goals of this talk are to define the relevant empirical domain, single out the characteristic properties, lay out the variation, and establish and account for the arising preliminary typology.To provide a uniform approach that accommodates the cross-linguistic variation, we define the empirical domain 𝔄 as follows: configurations in which a matrix A-element (argument (position), Case assigner, agreement head) is in an obligatory dependency (Agree, movement, binding, predication) with an element (operator, argument (position), obligatorily bound pronoun, gap) in an embedded finite clause. In addition to Hyperraising and LDA, 𝔄 thus also includes configurations such as Copy raising or Prolepsis since in these cases, an A-like argument in the matrix clause is obligatorily associated with an element in the embedded clause, typically (but not exclusively) a pronoun. Furthermore, we define the characterizing properties that are relevant for the configurations of 𝔄 as: i) whether the dependency is unbounded or shows locality restrictions (island sensitivity, A-Minimality); ii) whether or not there are semantic restrictions on the relevant DP (such as definiteness, specificity, topic interpretation); and iii) whether or not the finite clause is selected.