IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT (well, sort of)

[asteckley]

 it is highly improbable for any of them but one to have a relevance as strong as the one correct one

This is something I'm not at all sure of. In the past the task of constructing an anagram for a given meaning from a predefined sequence was prohibitively hard, but nowadays it may be much easier on a computer. Most anagrams made by hand sound a bit quirky and unnatural anyway, so as long as one can produce somethings specific, it might work even if the grammar is not perfect.

If I have time for this exercise, once Jorge_Stolfi publishes the announcement, I may try to come up with a good "decoding" of "what I meant" by ALL SOLUTIONS ARE EQUAL BUT SOME ARE MORE SO. It's a gamble, but I won't be surprised if it's possible to get a reasonably plausible result quickly, up to the point where it will be hard to tell which one is more relevant.

But what does that matter? The purpose of an SDA is to prove the fact that, regardless of who first publishes the discovery (i.e. solution to a bigger problem), the anagram's author was  "first", and that he had already made the discovery at the time that he produced the anagram.
It is true that with modern computer resources, you can tackle the anagram and FIND all possible rearrangements, and perhaps do so more efficiently. But that does not help to make any of them at all relevant.

The anagram might be such that it produces several (albeit a finite number) semantically sensible solutions. Say, for illustration, that the anagram has 30 characters and there are a dozen rearrangements that actually make some semantic sense.  Now, prior to the author simply disclosing his intended solution in order to demonstrate that he was the first to discover the answer to the scientific problem, people can try to find all those possible solutions to the anagram. And they can do that quickly using a computer, or slowly --and perhaps incompletely-- by slogging through manually. But even if they find them all, the anagram solution that the author intended is not meant to give the answer to the scientific problem. It is only meant to have enough correlation with the answer that it would be highly improbable to occur from the anagram simply by chance -- and therefore will demonstrate that the author had discovered the answer before composing the anagram. 

If one happens to find a solution to the anagram that not only makes some semantic sense, but also points a direction that suggests an answer to the scientific problem (which the intended solution might well do), then they might attempt to pursue it and discover the answer before the original author gets to his "reveal". And if more than one of the dozen solutions happens to not only make sense, but also provides possible pointers towards the answer to the scientific problem (which is highly, highly improbable), then so what? That just means there is more than one possible path for the would-be plagerist to waste time going down in hopes of making the discovery himself before the big reveal. But the fact that the original author published the anagram -- and it produces any solution that correlates with the actual answer to the scientific problem -- still secures the fact that he discovered it first.