My response to the unsettled hand architecture — tendon vs linkage vs direct-drive, DOF count, motor placement — is to hedge with a range: A17, B06, B20, not bet one design. Independent analysis gives this layer the lowest certainty of technology choice in its peer set; that route-risk defines it. Hedging is rational but doesn't remove the risk: a winning design I don't hold could strand part of the range. The same analysis frames me as a cross-over entrant on cost-performance, not a premium leader, with the coreless-motor half of the actuator commoditizing, low moat.