While I don't think this is in any obvious way helpful for your formalism, the sections from Sophie are very good descriptors of a lot of the issues related to hypothesis forming and use of Occam's razor.

That said, I'm not sure that your initial summary of the traditional scientific method is accurate. Hypotheses are rarely tested in isolation. Among other problems, hypotheses generally live inside larger frameworks. Moreover, observation of data is theory-laden and often only even makes sense in such large contexts. It might help to read some classical history of science and phil sci stuff since it seems from this very short descriptor of the classic scientific method that you don't have much familiarity with that. Popper, Kuhn, Quine and Lakatos would all be highly recommended.

Edit: Overall, the sections with Sophie are well done enough I almost wonder if they should be split off and added to one of the major sequences or added as an additional essay for one of the sequences.