I agree with the results of the majority in the empirical study. An object that has had all of it's components gradually replaced or changed is still 'the' obj

I agree with the results of the majority in the empirical study. An object that has had all of it's components gradually replaced or changed is still 'the' object that was started with as far as identity goes. If the parts which were replaced are restored and re-assembled the same way as the original is, that too is 'the' object. Yes, both or even maybe infinite clones/duplicates might exist at the same time. None of these are the initial object; that is lost to a moment in time. I would conceptually draw the line at a new 'finished' object needing greater than 50% of it's conceptual measure to be comprised of an iteration of the named object to qualify as being of that object at any given time. Once it classifies as that object by transitive properties the rest, even the new pieces, become of that object to at least some degree. As a slightly different twist on the subject, IIRC all Hass avocados are from splicing a single tree on to others. Given the semantics I would say that while none of these is still the initial tree, "the" tree would still be the one who's roots are still original. This is both by having a unique part which was never lost from the initial instance and by being the chronologically oldest/initial instance and having an unbroken history of existence.