Hey, nice work, Wheatgrinder.
I liked it. "Victorian style clothes?" Does that mean this is steampunk? If so, nice!
Not trying to be a grammar or a spelling nazi (as if I had the know-how to be either!), but just trying to help out with some of the grunt work:
There a couple instances in which you use the plural of scientist when I think you mean the singular. Also, there's at least one instance when you forget an apostrophe to indicate the possessive. Same with Girl, Girls and Girl's.
Another thing, perhaps this is just me being dumb or expecting to be spoon fed, but I had a little difficulty with the following two descriptions:
Unnoticed, the large, cracked and aged "transparent" projection screen, semi opaque with grime, flickers to life then quickly returns to sleep mode.
And...
The Scientist concentrates on the girl, a "blip" on the EKG
screen passes unnoticed. He sighs deeply and presses the
off button.
Of course, I understand that, presumably, you mean that the
scientist doesn't notice, not that we,
the viewers, don't notice. I wouldn't be surprised if I'm dead wrong about this, but if so, someone can correct me. I was reading along and when I got to those I had to take a moment to be sure I was oriented correctly as far as who and what was supposed to be not noticing something or going unnoticed by whom, or...er... Well, I'm feeling that the way it's written now would be fine for a prose novel or a short story, but I'm wondering if in a screenplay it wouldn't be best to make this more explicit. Something like:
The scientist doesn't notice the EKG blip, etc. That way the action(?) is crystal clear. Then again, I'm not the sharpest tool-- Hey! I saw you nodding. That hurts my feelings. So anyways, maybe I'm just quibbling with your perfectly fine writing style.
As for the tear, I had no problem imagining that the tear was simply due to her wanting to live or to be re-animated and also being frustrated or despairing at its difficulty or possible failure. Maybe she's longing to live, but things aren't looking to good for that happening.
I agree that even for short films a three act story structure is naturally and bound to be more satisfying for the viewer just as it is more satisfying when feature films have that structure, as opposed to something that's simply a scene or a sequence. However, it's not a rule, right? Anyway, it would grossly limit the short film form and filmmakers' options if we required them to have that, wouldn't it? Okay, part of that opinion is my own fear of trying to successfully write a short film with a...gasp!...plot. It's intimidating.
I guess I'm leerly of the ending, that is to say, the bit about revealing the product model, serial number, and company logo. If this is a world, say,
in the not so distant future, I feel like it then begs the question: why the heck didn't he just call Robot Daughters R Us Twenty-Four Hour Repair Service Hotline? If this is steampunk, even though I'm hardly familiar with it, I can't say I'm very thrilled about this particular anachronistic placement of Twentieth and Twenty-First Centuries material culture into a nineteenth century Victorian England(?) type setting (or time)...even if anachronism is the name of the game in steampunk. And it would still beg the question (for me) as to why he didn't simply make that call. On the other hand, I do understand that if you did place this within a larger story, you could imagine these two to be the last remaining survivors in a post apocalyptic world (or something), in which case Robot Daughters R Us would no longer exist. That makes me think of WALL-E.
Hope production and everything else goes great for you.
Not really, but definitely I was inspire by it. Of course I have a completely different story but many of the archetypal images are similar, as they are with many Frankenstein type story elements. 
