Ready.
copycat82 is worse than trivial. Its plagiarism leaves it as a subset of each of those prior art sources, which copycat82 attempts to imitate. Even when it admits some grave problem/need, copycat82 does not provide the solution.
Every single statement of copycat82, is such that, it is either trivial (in presence of prior art by others), or commits some major ignorance, and/or neglect:
If that were any method of research, we could even write arbitrary "research work" in some foreign language, even if we ourselves do not understand. Simply cut-and-paste published research papers in that language, and/or draw words from dictionary, at random, and submit that junk-pile to people speaking that language well. They tell you the errors, and you may attach the replies to the initial mess, you had cut-and-pasted.
Is that research? Whether others or oneself find some problems, it is the responsibility of the author to
copycat82 utters some vague statement, which may mean a variety of things. And even if that were about the problem which exists, given that no solution is published, it is admitted only. As such, it is only another type of self-contradiction. i.e: If you would admit such a grave problem (even if with vague sentences), what does it mean still to publish that text the way it is, with such grave, unsolved problems? How is that serious?
O.K. The prior art had workable solutions to similar questions, but if we assume copyat82's problems away, with our knowledge of such prior art, then no new content is left in copycat82. How is that a Ph.D. text? It is only a trade-off between plagiarism, and grave-mess (faultfull examples and fault-prone "method").
The [admitted] problems of copycat82 include:
On page 138, copycat82, within the reachability-test steps, expresses a point. But it is vague, and it does sound as if it means the Da80 (or, NN73, or SARA-1979) ideas of a tension between visible-net vs. internal-data (interpreted) abstraction. If it is only this, that means copycat82 does not mention its grave problems of ill-structured nets, as obvious in its examples, and as such, it is not verifiable. Or if it means to admit this, then copycat82 must either present some ideas to get rid of those grave problems, and/or attempt to verify with maximal complexity.
Even if the structure were corrected, the problems about the multi-step token-output, especially as coupled with ADTs, would still leave those nets maximally complex. Although copycat82 acknowledges that "ADTs eventually must be expressed in net terms," it does not publish any algorithms, nor even any examples. It again sounds as echoing those others (visible net vs. interpreted), without adapting the idea to its own case.
copycat82, in its title, does mention the term "distributed software systems" but it does not relate to any of the roblems which make such systems difficult. Even the NN73 example CDC 6400, with its satellite-processors, would already qualify as a distributed-system example, if that were all. Let alone, the later studies, e.g: Da80 (which copycat82 does not cite, although massively imitates). At a single point, where copycat82 mentions an issue, is to admit that it is "not much understood" how nodes may be partitioned. i.e: It does not bring any new solution there, too. Other issues, such as quorum-algorithms, availability, consistency-of-replicated data, or transparent-migration of resources, were not mentioned, at all. If these were not about a distributed software-model/verifier, then what is? Although copycat82 attempts to separate itself from network-protocol studies, it does not add any software-related content, either. Even NN73 examples were more advanced, ten years ago.
Most gate-macros contain problems. At least, the trivial "xor" works. It is a pair of mutually-inhibitor arcs. As such, if both paths may be enabled, it permanently deadlocks, until some process evacuates the (extra) token(s). Although copycat82 admits this, it does not publish even a single example of such a process. If in all of a Ph.D. text, no such example was neede, then why bother mention that macro-gate? It is very trivial, and it causes a lot of problems in many examples. e.g: In copycat82's attempt to publish a "monitor" example, that "xor" would deadlock, if a new token arrives, at the moment the old job finishes. (This is only one of the problems, there.)
copycat83 (the published paper, associated with copycat82) was first submitted in 1981 (as footnote tells). Presumably, copycat82 only transcribes the commentary (as responded by the reviewers) - with a single sentence, or two.