You are right in that interpretations have utility as helpful (mostly consistent) analogs that are easier to reason about when solving certain problems with the

You are right in that interpretations have utility as helpful (mostly consistent) analogs that are easier to reason about when solving certain problems with the theory. One interpretation might be more handy than another in a given context. They are just tools to facilitate thought. But they are not models that can be accepted as scientific "reality" (as physicists use the word), since they cannot be experimentally verified by design (they do not lead to different predictions from the accepted theory), they are merely plausible.