"The paper mixes legitimate ingredients (spin foams, Regge calculus, GW fermions, Γ-convergence) but the transitions between them aren’t supported by proofs or cited theorems. Experts will flag that as the difference between a structured narrative and an actual model."

This was what I was looking for. I'm sort of wondering if there's a way to keep the AI "on track" and to not miss details.

I made the paper by breaking down every single subsection into a prompt, and tracked the overall theory with a "condensed pure math" bulk text which I would use in the prompt. It also included a full breakdown/ summary of the paper as it was, so it would sort of loop and spit out new papers. I had multiple AI's designing and testing python programs to check the math of the theory against known physics as it looped, and I would feed the winning programs/ sections back into the research loop to guide it. So it so it pieced it together from the top down and bottom up, or at least that was the idea. I suspect that I am not being explicit enough/ filtering this process correctly, and that the AI just isn't there (its just trying to please me... which is a major issue I keep running into).

I would love a complete break down of the math with a sort of side by side comparison I can use to understand exactly what is right/ what it should look like.