Looking back over my recent work, I've noticed (well, to be accurate, I noticed it awhile back but have thought about it more recently) how often my compositions have started being portrait orientation rather than landscape, which is still sort of the default framing for most people. Now, I like both orientations, and I often look at photos made in landscape and wonder how they'd look taken in portrait. Compositionally portrait offers a completely different challenge a lot of the time, since vertical elements are usually of a different nature than horizontal ones. Horizontally, you're often looking at more of the same, while vertically you often have very different elements playing against one another (sky vs. ground, foreground vs. background, focal plane which has a bit more separation, especially between close foreground elements - where DoF is shallower - and middle-to-background). I think that's a big part of the reason why portrait orientation can deliver more dynamic photos sometimes. Also, you can find the "end-points" of things more easily, be they trees, people, buildings, etc. The terminal "roots and branches" of things.
Anyway, while I've discovered those features of shooting in portrait, that wasn't necessarily intentional going into things. No, the reason I think I was shooting portrait orientation was different: simply that I've been using the 28mm of the Ricoh GRIII more than other cameras. Because it's wide, shooting portrait is a primary way of "snipping" the subject from too much surrounding context. Another way in which limitations help, as they got me to behave more creatively as I was being forced to deal with more vertical space and find ways to include that stuff.
Now, I could have simply changed the aspect ratio to 1:1, but I have always felt a bit awkward shooting (or even cropping) in square. It's just hard for me to think in those terms, all the great medium format square work notwithstanding.
The underlying accompanying GAS thought to go with this observation (isn't there always something) is... you guessed it, the GR IIIx would make a nice difference by having a tighter, 40mm, lens.