1. You say OoL and habitability are different, but then define them with the same three things (water, food, energy). If the shopping list is identical, why is “looking for where life could start” a different task from “looking for where life could live”? This feels like a distinction without a practical difference.
2. Detecting ocean glint or specific prebiotic gases on an Earth-twin? With the integration times and noise levels we’re looking at, this seems wildly optimistic. This section reads more like a dream list than a realistic mission-planning guide. Where’s the hard numbers on feasibility?
3. Your whole point is that OoL science helps avoid false positives. But your key prebiosignatures (like HCN, CH₄) are also made by life. You don’t explain what magic bullet observation tells us “life is about to form here” vs. “life is already here messing with the atmosphere.” Without that, the concept is useless for interpreting data.
4. Table 3 just puts checkmarks everywhere. Where’s the evidence that, say, the Europa Clipper mission will meaningfully constrain origin-of-life parameters for exoplanets? It feels like you just ticked boxes for any mission vaguely related to “habitability” or “chemistry,” which weakens your argument.