That's a very creative potential experiment, and I do hope some such experiments can be proposed!

However, my understanding of the double slit experiment is that the "observer" in the experiment means something more like measurer or measurability, which can be done by devices. And it shouldn't be construed as being deeply tied to consciousness in philosophically important sense.

My understanding was 'measuring is touching' with light, imparting energy into the delicate system, and no measurement can be done at that scale (thanks to the rules of light frequency/energy) that can both detect it and be weak enough to not bother the result.

So when I say like the double slit needs to be adapted, it would need to account for such. It would need to test for 'choice' from a particle... somehow...

Or... maybe randomness as a concept is flawed. Maybe randomness === '(some level of informed?) choice' from particles we are not privy too. not some 'hidden variable' but a dynamic ability to 'choose'?

How would we prove random is random and not a choice/decision we can't see or understand?

Supposedly Bell's inequality means there are no hidden variables (or implies even weirder things) ?

I am not talking about 'hidden variables'. More like... 'hidden (unfound as of yet) functions'...