Inception does the isolation-per-asset thing competently: separate vaults for each liquid staking token, support for both major restaking layers, and a clean record. In a category this young, competence and a clean record count for something.
The scale problem
It is small. Small means thin liquidity, so exits depend on the underlying restaking withdrawal path rather than the market. It also means less external attention: the number of independent researchers examining a protocol scales with the value it holds, and a small protocol gets correspondingly less scrutiny than its audits alone would suggest.
What it does offer
Isolated vaults containing risk per asset, multi-layer support so depositors can choose between EigenLayer and Symbiotic exposure, and published audits. The mechanics are documented adequately.
Assessment
Nothing here is wrong. The scores reflect a young, small protocol in a young category — the risk is not a specific flaw but the general absence of the evidence that time and scale produce.
Who should use it
Depositors specifically wanting isolated exposure to an asset or restaking layer that larger protocols do not offer, at sizes they can leave until redemption. Most users should be in a larger, more scrutinised protocol.