Thanks for posting - and I hope yu find the discussions interesting.
You (and you are far from alone here) refer to ANT as "a lens" asking
"How will it work with the other mirrors and prisms which reflect and refract the light (information) issuing from my object of study? Will the magnification be adequate, does it provide sufficient depth of field and will I be able to adjust the focus?"
This is a common way of fitting ANT in with other approaches, methods and theories.
But... is that appropriate?
I've always felt this is somehow anathema to the ideas and spirit of the originators of ANT who wanted to much more fundamentally shift sociology. To me making it "one lens among may" is to fall into the sort of perspectivalism it set out to respecify ad challenge.
Perspectivalism, as I understand it from John Law's "After method" is the idea that there are lots of different 'lenses' to view "the same" object which will be seen in slightly different ays or reveal different properties of it. But if you see methods as performative then they are not so much lenses as crucibles and casts that create potentially fundamentally different things from their mixtures, rather than offering a different view of something offering the idea of triangulation. It challenges the blind men and the elephant parable... (Bit I'm not sure how to work that out right now!)
Discuss - maybe?