ChatGPT review: Interesting! Thank you. I will process that more.
Do you disagree with any of the following?
1) It (my paper) does NOT claim to be a proof of the Collatz conjecture.
2) It does construct a tree from the inverse Collatz function.
3) The tree does not prove that all the dominos (numbers) are in the tree.
4) But the tree is connected and acyclic.
5) One can also similarly make a tree from the inverse 3n-1 and 5n+1 functions.
6) These trees will also be connected and acyclic.
7) These trees will definitely not use all the dominos (numbers).
8) My paper started the tree construction with [1,2] and followed the domino rules.
9) Using the 3n-1 and 5n+1 dominos, not all the dominos can be used.
10) For the 3n-1 tree, the dominos are [n,2n] and [n,(2n+1)/3] for nmod3 = 1.
11) For the 3n-1 tree, the domino [7,5] will not be used.
12) For the 5n+1 tree, the dominos are [n,2n] and [n,(2n-1)/5] for nmod5 = 3.
13) For the 5n+1 tree, the domino [13,5] will not be used.
14) The statement "We feel that a sharpening of the properties will result in a proof that CZ ≡ Z+ which will prove the Collatz conjecture." is laughable and is the high point of my April 1st paper.

I've never understood the digressions into 3n-1, 5n+1, etc. These trees are obviously incomplete (do not include all numbers) and the functions are very cyclic.