I think you have a point. The paper has load bearing reliance on other preprints. I think soon we see a workflow where AI (ChatGPT) can identify precise transitions in the argument that do not require full formalization to falsify. Link - https://chatgpt.com/share/693cc655-ca94-800c-870a-a5c78fb10d...

I did the same thing (roughly) with Gemini 3.0 Pro.

Prompt: "Analyze the mathematics in the paper. Find mistakes, note instabilities (if present) and generally criticize as needed."

https://gemini.google.com/share/6860fdaea334

The mathematics here are far beyond me, but it's interesting that Gemini more or less concurs with chatgpt with respect to "load bearing reliance on other preprints".

Gemini's summary (there's much more in the link above that builds up to this):

The mathematics is largely robust but relies on heavy "black box" theorems (Iritani's blowup formula, Givental's equivariant mirror symmetry) to bypass difficult geometric identifications in the non-archimedean setting. The primary instability is the lack of a non-archimedean Riemann-Hilbert correspondence, which limits the "enhanced" atoms theory. The core results on cubic fourfolds hold because the specific spectral decomposition (eigenvalues $0, 9, 9\zeta, 9\zeta^2$) is robust and distinct22, but the framework's extension to finer invariants (integral structures) is currently obstructed.