We rigorously follow the foundational principles of Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen, and Sommerfeld to their natural conclusions and present an operational critique of the ER = EPR conjecture. Employing the bedrock axioms of symmetry and repeatability, which demand that identical experiments yield consistent, directly measurable results; we evaluate the observable claims of both theories without introducing new formalisms. Our analysis reveals that the ER = EPR equivalence is internally inconsistent: the Einstein-Rosen bridge, as a consequence of general relativity's Lorentzian foundation, implies the physical reality of transformed coordinates, which we demonstrate violates repeatability. In contrast, the EPR criterion of reality and Sommerfeld's 1909 spherical model align strictly with direct observability. Via the CST appendix we demonstrate that Sommerfeld's geometric framework naturally satisfies the EPR criterion, reformulating entanglement as deterministic antipodal symmetry on a sphere and offering a collapse-free model of quantum measurement. The results expose a fundamental paradox within Einstein's own legacy, showing that his 1935 papers on ER and EPR advance irreconcilable interpretations of physical reality under the constraints of symmetry and repeatability. This work does not propose new ideas but reveals that the natural conclusions of these classic works are logically incompatible, challenging the coherence of the ER=EPR conjecture.