The source document assesses fifty-three candidates, and the reduction here is not a judgement that the others are weaker. It is a judgement about what a reviewer needs.
Fifty-three independent claims read as a catalog, and a catalog invites the reasonable suspicion that the criteria were chosen to admit as much as possible. Twelve claims, each traced to the same paradigm and each stated with its defeating condition, read as an argument. The remaining forty-one are available in the source document, and several are strong on their own terms — the Hayekian knowledge-aggregation result, the resolution of the sovereign-coordination trilemma, and the medical-infrastructure candidates in particular. They are omitted because they do not bear as directly on the claims the companion documents make, not because they are weaker.
The deeper reason for the reduction is the one Part I states. If the paradigm holds, the number of derivable results is not evidence of anything, because a genuine substrate change produces many. What is evidence is whether any one of them holds. Six is enough to establish the pattern and few enough that each can be assessed properly, which is the condition under which assessment is worth conducting at all.