Author here. Some fair points, some misreadings.

The caching comment refers to the Tier 1 controller holding a bitmap of bits it has already scanned — standard practice in any scanning probe system. It's not competing with the storage medium for capacity.

Tier 2 is explicitly labeled speculative. The paper's validation target is Tier 1: one C-AFM scan, one voltage pulse, existing equipment.

The core contribution is not the architecture — it's the physics: a verified transition state for C-F pyramidal inversion at 4.6 eV (B3LYP) and 4.8 eV (CCSD(T)), one imaginary frequency, barrier below bond dissociation. That's standard computational chemistry, not handwaving. The architecture sections are forward-looking by design.

The fluorine passes between two carbon neighbors through a C-C gap of 2.64 Å at the transition state — not through any atom. This is pyramidal inversion, the same mechanism as ammonia, but with a 4.6 eV barrier instead of 0.25 eV.

Magnetic tape comparison is in Table 2.

Dude, you _have_ to write things in your own words if you want to be taken seriously. "The <x> is not <y> — it's <z>" will cause a bunch of people to disengage, and those people have high overlap with the people who may fund you.