I will note up front that networking is not my domain of expertise. First comment is I was immediately confused by the naming of the paper. Seeing "P3352: " first on the page leads me to believe this is P3352 not P4286. Mungo had to clarify this for me before I was able to begin.
1. Is the historical trace accurate?
The historical trace seems to be accurate. I think it is important that to highlight that ASIO and S/R effectively arrived at the same problem having wildly different architecture. It does sound like S/R does have a narrower requirement on infallibility of schedulers, but it does still seemingly exist.
2. Did the use of AI affect your perception?
I think the issues with AI usage are far larger in this paper than in the previous review. The paper under review here is ~5 pages of actual material which is up from ~3 on Friday when I first looked at the paper (the paper under review has been edited without updating the revision number since Mungo's original post). Once again the issue is that the LLM of choice will have huge amounts of context from sitting in the repo where all of these papers are sitting, and presumably stored context from writing the other ones. This is completely missing to the reader. The entire argument of the paper isn't even in the paper, because it's been offloaded into three other papers. Typically references and citations are for optional additional information, not required reading in order to understand the current paper at hand.
3. Is the structural claim sound?
Yes and no. Yes, I would agree that the infallibility of executors/scheduling has become and issue again. I would argue no in that it's ok to change one's opinion when new information is provided. As noted above, S/R has a widely different architecture than ASIO, and the starting assumption was that they would be able to solve this problem (see P1525). It looks like after many years of research and development they've arrived back at a similar problem in a narrower form. I think it's less they rediscovered the problem and more their hypothesis failed, which in research is completely ok.
4. What is missing, and where is the argument weakest?
As above, I think the argument is weakest in that it seems to posit that once an issue has been identified there's no space for additional research. Opinions have changed on what is possible based on new information, and that should be considered normal and acceptable. Matt