Dear Georgina,
You clearly state the problem in your discussion of Einstein's relativistic treatment of space-time. While I believe that he made a mistake to apply the term simultaneity to what is, in essence, a synchronicity problem, nevertheless you point out that the 'substantial Object' that triggers the observations is not identical to the sensed data, framed by local observers (needing synchronization) and to confuse this is a category error. Well said. In fact I see that you said: "the object reality... and image reality... are not synchronized."
I also agree with your analysis of the moon (and I do believe it's there, regardless of the variety of labels involved in the analysis.)
I did not fight through your analysis of the cat, as I find the quantum mechanical idea of "superposition" to be the cause of more confusion in physics than one would believe possible. I hope your explanation clarifies it for some.
You note also in reference to the 'heads-tails' dichotomy, that "the superposition of heads and tails observables does not faithfully represent the state of the coin element of object reality prior to measurement." Amen! You further state that "there is reason to believe that it is interaction with the [Stern-Gerlach] apparatus, that generates the apparent clear dichotomy of spin states, rather than the existence of two pure states of spin in an unmeasured object reality." As this nicely summarizes the local model described in my essay, I hope that you will find time to read my essay and give it some thought. It also bears on entanglement. In particular, the difference between Bell's failed local model and the actual correlation (predicted by QM and measured by experiment) is shown as the shaded area in the figure at the bottom of page 6 in my essay.
As locally real models are claimed by Bell to produce the straight line correlation, whereas, in reality the correlation is found to yield the cosine curve, there is a need for "something" to explain the difference. This 'something' is entanglement. But if the local model actually produces the cosine curve (as mine does) then there is no need at all for the 'entanglement' explanation.
As you have obviously put much time, effort, and thought into this, I hope you find my essay both understandable and rewarding.
I will end my comment at this point except to say that 1.) I agree with you that "the unwritten future does not exist." and 2.) You need to find some name or term or symbol to replace the alphabetic combinations. They are so hard to read.
You have written a most impressive essay. I hope you again do very well in this contest.
My very best wishes,
Edwin Eugene Klingman