Ranking Competing geologic interpretations via foundation-model-assisted generative hydrologic inversion

High-consequence subsurface decisions often rely on sparse data that permit competing geological interpretations. Determining consistency of these interpretations with the available observations remains challenging. We present a workflow that addresses this challenge by translating competing geologic interpretations into alternative priors and ranking them according to their consistency with hydraulic-head observations. A key step in this workflow is exploiting the broad knowledge of image-generation foundation models to transform nuanced geologic interpretations into data ready for computer modeling. For each interpretation, a text-to-image foundation model generates an ensemble of geologic images, and a separately trained variational autoencoder learns an interpretation-specific latent representation. A supervised inverse network maps head observations into this latent space, and the frozen decoder reconstructs an image that is mapped to a log-conductivity field. Steady-state flow simulations predict heads, and the aggregate normalized head error determines the ranking. We evaluate the framework using a synthetic benchmark based on the Johansen Formation with three interpretations of decreasing consistency with the reference geology. Across 595 test cases, the Precise & Accurate interpretation produces lower normalized errors than Accurate in 58.5% of cases and Mismatched in 82.5% of cases. Accurate outperforms Mismatched in 65.5% of cases. We then compare spatial representations of two published conceptual models of the Culebra Dolomite Member at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. The revised representation yields an aggregate normalized error of 7.598, compared with 8.595 for the original, consistent with the documented conceptual-model revision. The framework enables quantitative comparison of competing geological interpretations using available hydraulic observations.