Relative Validity Indices (RVIs) such as the Silhouette Width Criterion, Calinski-Harabasz and Davie's Bouldin indices are the most popular tools for evaluating and optimising applications of clustering. Their ability to rank collections of candidate partitions has been used to guide the selection of the number of clusters, and to compare partitions from different clustering algorithms. Beyond these more conventional tasks, many examples can be found in the literature where RVIs have been used to compare and select other aspects of clustering approaches such as data normalisation procedures, data representation methods, and distance measures. The authors are not aware of any studies that have attempted to establish the suitability of RVIs for such comparisons. Moreover, given the impact of these aspects on pairwise similarities, it is not even immediately obvious how RVIs should be implemented when comparing these aspects. In this study, we conducted experiments with seven common RVIs on over 2.7 million clustering partitions for both synthetic and real-world datasets, encompassing feature-vector and time-series data. Our findings suggest that RVIs are not well-suited to these unconventional tasks, and that conclusions drawn from such applications may be misleading. It is recommended that normalisation procedures, representation methods, and distance measures instead be selected using external validation on high quality labelled datasets or carefully designed outcome-oriented objective criteria, both of which should be informed by relevant domain knowledge and clustering aims.