Given the lack of visible ball locks on the field and the orientation of the targets to the orbits and ramp, I would say there IS a good chance that these could indeed be bash targets from the front and scoops on the back. Though it would take some very tight careful engineering to make it likely the scoop could reliably catch the ball.
This would make a LOT of sense with the incorporation of the U-turn ramp, as the only way to fill the scoop on say the left pop up target/scoop would be to shoot the right ramp and employ the U-turn. The ball could fall inside the target/scoop and submerge with it into the field. When multiball is ready, it could pop back up and eject out the back up the ramp or into the orbit.
I would say based on this all four could be this same configuration, if indeed this is how they work. Then there would be places to lock four different balls and it would make for a challenging buildup to multiball.
It would be great if there were underfield subways that haven't been shown, but I'm not holding my breath on that one. I think it is far more likely that if these are some sort of scoop that they take the ball down in-place and then later return it from that spot up and into play at a later point.
If all true that would make these more interesting than I had originally thought. It would be MUCH more interesting than them being just bash targets. The backstab idea previously floated where they are bi-directional bash targets that act differently hit from front vs back is interesting, but not nearly so as if they are scoops.
I'm still a bit concerned of having so many bash targets in what is supposed to be a flow game. It would be good only if there is a VERY careful balance of allowing flow and then interrupting it with the pop-ups. If they were up too much they would cause too much loss of ball control, the opposite of flow.
-Jim