Well you could go the “find a bunch of museum pieces and write instructions for their reconstruction and run a test of said reconstructions with your best guess of the available technology 50 years from now” as long as you don’t mind spending orders of magnitude more money than the printouts with a much more uncertain outcome.
The driving goal for the pace maker guys was to have something that could be searched at machine speeds for something like find all pacemakers using the A498B valve (which we now know to be faulty after 25 years) built in the last 80 years. No one cared if it was stored digitally or not - if a analogue robot using the “hold it up to the light against a negative with the desired characters” principle is used that’s good too. So you don’t have to know and don’t care about future information technology trends. No one cared about the “challenging set of digital solutions” because they weren’t in the IT business. Side-stepping the whole issue provided a superior solution and notions of “archaic” or “advanced” were irrelevant.
Remember, there is no correlation between “old”, “new”, “complex”, “simple”, “digital”, or “analogue” and “good”. “Good” is good w.r.t. your goals and the resources available to reach them and w.r.t. nothing else.
