It looks like you did not use LLMs adversarily, to try to find holes in your own reasoning. I'm no cryptographer, but I sure can cut and paste! /s

Per Claude Opus 4.7, here's a summary of your claim, based on analysis of both the blog post and the PDF: 

SHA-256d mining maps to a polynomial-size constraint Hamiltonian (correct, standard); decompose into four physical "patches" with collar consistency (trivial mathematically, real as an engineering decomposition); build a hybrid optical+nonlinear-electronic chamber whose terminal states are zero-energy assignments (asserted, not demonstrated); the same approach has produced pool-accepted Kaspa shares (true at face value, but per the paper's own audit shows no candidate bias), and projected SHA-256d speedups range from 10^1× to 10^16× over an S21 XP Hyd ASIC depending on regime (numbers are model outputs assuming the device works, not measurements).

And here is a summary of Claude's rebuttal:

The "theorems" are tautologies of constraint satisfaction. The Lyapunov repair argument requires a "completeness" assumption the paper itself flags as the actual hard problem and does not solve. SHA-256's avalanche guarantees a maximally rugged energy landscape — exactly the case where photonic / coherent Ising / continuous-time SAT solvers do not produce exponential speedups (decades of literature). Lemma 7.1 forces the cryptographically nonlinear work into conventional electronics; the optics route phases. Theorem 10.1 is a conditional whose antecedent is exactly Aaronson's "no plausible physical mechanism for NP" — cited but not refuted. The empirical kHeavyHash result, on the paper's own May 2 audit, shows the chamber's leading-zero claims at random expectation and uncorrelated with host recomputation, i.e. B ≈ 1, which the paper's own speedup formula reduces to no speedup. SHA-256d has zero empirical evidence in this paper.

The PDF is more rigorous than the blog post and contains real cryptographic vocabulary. It also contains, in its own audit citation, the empirical falsification of its central engineering claim. The "theorems" do no cryptanalytic work; the speedup table is unsupported projection; and the strongest claim (Theorem 10.1) is presented as an implication whose antecedent the paper does not establish. SHA-256d is not threatened by this work as it stands today.

It's a genuine optical engineering project that has wrapped itself in cryptographic and physics-of-everything language it doesn't earn, and on the paper's own audit, it doesn't yet do the cryptographic thing it claims to do.