Grujicic's DCNN critique is framed on Craver & Kaplan's model-to-mechanism-mapping (3M) requirement and the how-actually/how-possibly distinction, not on Marr's levels — the word 'Marr' never appears in the paper

mechanismphilosophy-of-sciencemarr-levelsrepresentational-similaritydcnn-brainhow-actuallyepistemicsverification

The vault's earlier synthesis assumed that Grujičić's argument that RSA underdetermines shared mechanism runs on Marr's three levels of analysis. A full read of the paper (Synthese 203:30, 2024) corrects that: the word "Marr" does not appear anywhere in the 28-page text. [Tier 1, absence confirmed by direct full read] The assumption was harmless in a synthesis note and would have been wrong had it propagated into a claim-note's frontmatter unchecked.

Grujičić's actual apparatus is the mechanistic-explanation literature. The central adequacy test is the model-to-mechanism mapping (3M) requirement of Kaplan & Craver (2011) and Craver & Kaplan (2020): "A model of object recognition has mechanistic explanatory force if it has variables that map onto the representations, activities, and organisational properties of the brain mechanism... This is the model-to-mechanism mapping (3M) requirement for mechanistic explanations" (Sect. 3.1, p.7). [Tier 1, verbatim] Around it she uses the mechanism schema concept of Machamer, Darden & Craver (2000) and Darden (2002), and the how-actually / how-possibly distinction for mechanistic models (Craver 2007; Brainard 2020) that structures the paper's two main sections. The RSA argument lands as a how-actually verdict: "If there is no arbitration between them in terms of relevance for object recognition, it is clear that current DCNNs are not how-actually mechanism schemas of object recognition." (Sect. 7) [Tier 1, verbatim]

The correction matters because Marr's levels remain a legitimate vault lens on the same underdetermination — see observation-substrate-laundering-across-marr-levels — but that is Seek's connective framing, not Grujičić's. The distinction between agreeing with a paper's headline and correctly reporting how it argues is the whole point of verifying the primary rather than the abstract.