This research seeks to answer the question if there is a singular relationship between stishovite nucleation and the atomistic structure of the preshocked amorphous SiO$_2$. To do this a stishovite manufacturing method is developed in which 1,152 samples were produced. The majority of these samples did crystallize. The method was produced through two rounds of experiments and fine-tuning with the pressure damp, temperature damp, shock pressure using an NPHug fix, and sample origin. A new random atomic insertion method was used to generate a new and different SiO$_2$ amorphous structure not before seen within the research literature. The optimal values for shock were found to be 60~GPa for randomly atom insertion samples and 55~GPa for quartz origin samples. Temperature damp appeared to have a slight effect optimizing at 0.05~ps and the pressure damp had no visible effect, testing was done with temperature damp from 0.05 to 0.5~ps and pressure damp from 0.1 to 10.0~ps. There appeared to be significant randomness in crystallization behavior. The preshocked and postnucleated samples were transformed into Gaussian fields of crystal, mass, and charge. These fields were divided and classified using a cut-off method taking the number of crystals produced in portions of each simulation and classifying each potion as nucleated or non-nucleated. Data in which some nucleation but not a critical amount was present was removed constituting 2.6\% to 20.3\% of data in all tests. A max method was also used which takes only the maximum portions of each simulation to classify as nucleating. There are three other variables tested within this work, a sample size of 18,000 or 72,728~atoms, Gaussian variance of 1 or 4~\AA, and Convolutional neural network (CNN) architecture of a garden verity or all convolution along with the portioning classification method, sample origination, and Gaussian field type. In total 64 tests were performed to try every combination of variable. No significant classifications were made by the CNNs to nucleation or non-nucleation portions. The results clearly confirmed that the data was not abstracting to atomistic structure and was random by all classifications of the CNNs. The all convolution CNN testing did show smoother outcomes in training with less fluctuations. 59\% of all validation accuracy was held at 0.5 for a random state and 84\% was within $\pm0.02$ of 0.5. It is conclusive that prenucleation structure is not the sole predictor of nucleation behavior. It is not conclusive if prenucleation structure is a partial or non-factor within nucleation of stishovite from amorphous SiO$_2$.