"I don't think it could, because neither candle, lit or unlit, would be a complex system within Rosen's meaning. In general, inorganic systems are not complex systems.
Just thinking through what you wrote, how does one "disassemble" a candle? I suppose one could melt it, or smash it up with a hammer. But to "reassemble" it would not reconstitute the original candle."
In careful accommodation to the spirit of this analysis, one could disassemble a candle molecule by molecule, and the wick thread by thread, reassembling the candle in a new place with every component in its proper place. One would be hard pressed to be able to distinguish any difference from one to the other.
In my example of the lit candle, even this careful and laborious procedure is met with difficulty. For the bottom of the candle, one would proceed as above. Once you arrive at the area of melted wax, you will begin to perceive a few extra dimensions to the problem.
In theory, one could record the temperature of the wax, and continue further. Eventually, when you reach the flame, trying to record the temperatures of the atoms of carbon incandescing in the rising prodicts of combustion become even theoretically perhaps impossible.
The clever student will suggest that the practical thing to do is to extinguish the flame and then re-ignite it. But that is not the same thing at all.
We poets often accord candles a propensity to imitate or allegorically stand in for living things. One begins to understand why this is effective in studying the question I posed.
Well granted, one could "in principle" or "theoretically" disassemble and reassemble a candle as you describe — on the presupposition of limitless possibilities that would accrue to the presupposition of limitless time. If you have limitless time, then sooner or later everything turns out "right." [By whose standard of "right" is not a piece of information that is usually disclosed.]
But to people for whom "endless time and no constraints on 'possibility'" is not the presupposition, your argument is unconvincing.
To make it convincing, you would have to show how you would "disassemble a candle molecule by molecule," and then later reassemble it molecule by molecule back into its precisely identical original configuration. And then give a reason for why the candle resulting from this process would in any way BE the "original" candle. And these two things I believe you cannot do.
But if you want to take a crack at it, I'm all ears.
The point is, if you can't do that, then consideration of all that follows in your post is premature at best. In the judgment of some of your readers here, what you wrote may have indicated a desire to steer us into an impossible (and quite fruitless) wild goose chase....
Your final point — "One would be hard pressed to be able to distinguish any difference from one to the other" — implies that a universal standard according to which truthful judgments can be made, and on which they depend, is completely unnecessary. Because the way reality appears to us is its "final truth."
Which is the same as saying: There is no "objective" truth in reality. Thus Everyman must be his own logos.