nuclear physics - Are fundamental particles more than their properties?

Parent questions:

What came first, neutrons or electrons?

Why saying that during electron capture the electron is converted to a neutrino?

Background: various nuclear phenomena show the transformation of a set of fundamental particles into others. In particular, an electron capture leads a proton plus an electron to a chain of events that result in a neutron and a neutrino. Or a proton produces a positron, a neutron, a neutrino, etc.

In their answer, The_Sympathizer says in the end hadrons are observed to be made of subparticles and neither of them is an electron, so this is proof the electron does not survive the process of electron capture (sorry if I don't use the right words).

Yet, during all of these nuclear reactions, there is conservation of a number of things, including energy, charge, and other things.

So if a particle in the standard model is defined through its properties (mass, charge, spin, etc) and if after a nuclear reaction, those properties are redistributed among the final products, why is it different to say that part of the initial particles are redistributed? Is it just that the relation is not bijective, i.e. that properties constitute a particle but particles are not a set of properties?