Thanks — that distinction is helpful. EIP-8058 appears more directly aimed at reducing duplicate code storage and deployment costs, and compatible factories could potentially benefit for future deployments. That benefit should be distinguished from retrofitting existing deployed instances; whether that is possible depends on the proposal’s specified mechanism.
I would not frame EIP-8298 as a replacement for EIP-8058. Its code-adoption primitive also targets code reuse, while its separate migration use case is to let an account adopt wallet code so EIP-3607 prevents transactions originating directly from that account. That is a migration path, not general-purpose upgradeability.
The useful comparison, then, is about scope and compatibility: which deployment patterns each proposal supports, what changes are needed in factories or account initialization, and whether existing instances can benefit. If their mechanisms are compatible, they may be complementary rather than mutually exclusive.