Do enlighten us - what conflicts with the previously understood "facts" of solar-system formation theories? Chemical / isotopic composition? Grain size / structure? Something else?
My understanding is that the primordial makeup of the solar system is already pretty well known from studying meteorites, with it being fairly certain that if you cut one open and sample the inside, you get a good representation of what was there when it was a rock floating around space and before it got battered about and the surface heated up by entry into the Earth's atmosphere (somewhat counterintuitively, meteorites of any appreciable size that have just fallen are often very cold, because only the surface gets heated by atmospheric friction, and the middle remains at the temperature of deep space, which is only a couple of kelvin). Such rocks tend to be either chondritic (basically fused pebbles) or metallic (usually iron/nickel alloy with pretty crystallisation patterns) depending on where in the solar system they formed (things with a higher melting point closer to the centre of the protoplanetary disk) - the other ones that formed further out, that are largely icy tend not to get sampled because they come from the outer solar system and ice melts or shatters when it reaches the Earth; cometary bodies from the Oort Cloud are thus usually mostly icy rather than rocky or metallic.
Anyway, it's a fair assumption that if a space rock hits the Earth, and it's not one that shows signs of having been blasted off the surface of another planet (such as some meteorites from the Martian surface), then its makeup is representative of the time it formed, which statistically is almost always going to be when the solar system as a whole was forming. Ricks sampled in space might give us more information, but essentially, it's going to be more detailed versions of the same information unless there's something shocking going on (which you allude to but don't specify).
Biting the hand that feeds IT
