This is a fascinating direction—especially the emphasis on constraint-based reconstruction rather than speculative psychology. The idea of narrowing cognition to a “minimal feasible set” grounded in evidence feels like a much-needed shift in how we approach historical minds.
I agree that the underlying concept isn’t entirely new—there have been attempts in cognitive history, behavioral modeling, and even AI simulation—but MCR-10 seems to formalize it in a much more rigorous and reproducible way. That’s where its real strength lies.
If the conditions you mention are satisfied—clear historical data, bounded hypothesis spaces, and strong validation frameworks—then yes, reconstructing decision-level cognition becomes not only possible but scientifically meaningful.
What stands out most is how this approach acknowledges irreducible non-uniqueness instead of forcing a single narrative. That alone makes it far more credible than traditional retrospective interpretations.
Overall, this feels less like “creating a digital clone” in a sci-fi sense and more like building a constrained cognitive model—which is both more realistic and more valuable.
