Actually, I doubt LtCol Cooper would like it all that much, less so that it deliberately ignores several key points of the concept while claiming to be the ultimate embodiment of his vision. It's actually a huge disappointment, especially for the $$$. They really just cobbled it together out of the parts bin, and the places where they spent money were exactly the wrong places.
1) It only barely makes max weight, but could easily have made ideal weight with proper stocking and ditching the stupid detachable magazine. But Ruger already had the laminated stock in the parts bin, so they used it. And big detachable mags on bolt rifles are currently very tacticool, so they spent a bunch of $ to have one.
2) It makes length only by use of an excessively short barrel, thus reducing muzzle velocity. Cooper settled on 19 inches as ideal. Apparently, it was too much trouble for Ruger to make a run of 19 inch barrels for their flagship rifle, and, well, they don't actually have a .308 barrel of 18 - 20" length in their parts bin, so they just went with the closest thing, even though it isn't even close. Good enough, right?
3) The only possible gain for this loss is a threaded muzzle for suppressor attachment, which maybe 1% of the owners are going to do. Ruger could have threaded that (nonexistent) 19" barrel and put a thread protector on it; the rare owner who has a suppressor is taken care of and the rest of us have 19" worth of velocity, but, well, flash hiders are black and a Tier 1 gun has to have one. And besides, the 16" barrel needs a flash hider, 'cause it's really short, see? Ah, OK now I get it: you now have a barrel as long as a proper 19" barrel, but with all the reduced velocity and increased blast of a 16" barrel. Genius, pure genius.
4) There is no provision for a 3-point sling, nor is a CW or Ching sling provided. Sure, you can install a 3rd swivel yourself, and buy or make a 3-point sling, but this is Ruger's flagship rifle that's missing a critical part of the concept.
5) The detachable magazine is another superfluous, weight-and-bulk-increasing "feature" that goes against the concept. Closely tied to this is the lack of any provision for loading from stripper clips. Stripper clip loading of the existing, perfectly fine, internal double-stack Hawkeye magazine could (and should) have been done for less $ than dithering about changing to an expensive single-stack magazine. It would not even have been necessary to modify the rear receiver bridge: incorporating a clip guide into the rear sight would have been far cheaper than modifying the action for an expensive detachable magazine, and certainly more effective. One can buy hundreds of USGI stripper clips for the price of one of these magazines. Anyone who has stripper clip loaded a Mauser or '03 Springfield magazine knows it can be done as fast as changing a detachable magazine. Any hope that Ruger would make a rear sight/clip guide combo (which they could easily also make in 5.56 NATO and 7.62x39 stripper clip flavors) is dashed by the use of a single-stack mag that can't be loaded from clips.
A huge, gigantic part of the scout concept is to have a rifle that is handy. Cooper wrote at length about being able to carry the scout with the hand wrapped around the action, just as you would carry an iron-sighted lever-action. He stressed the advantages of a slim receiver and forward scope to achieve that end, even suggesting that a 3-round magazine would be advantageous. Nobody at Ruger remembered that part, because they have a really big, bulky magazine protruding exactly where it shouldn't.
Ruger were very close to a rifle that embodied the scout concept with their now-discontinued Frontier, but went all "tacticool" and added a bunch of junk that detracts from the rifle, while ignoring things that would really be useful.