What is a "final place," if not at the exit of a [sub]net?

For VD78 subnets, the concept of an idle-place is important. The subnet sees the rest of the network, as that idle place, whereas the rest of the net sees that (well-formed) subnet as a(n ordinary) transition. It is a very simple, yet robust idea.

copycat82, changes the name to a, "final place," but the statement about it, is vague, if not faultfull. Yet another pointer to the plagiarism of copycat82 - with an attempted camouflage.

final-places listable? always? only for subnets?

E-net set of peripheral-locations, P, is a subset of locations,L. In copycat82, F_in corresponds to P, and F==F_out corresponds to Psi (the resolution procedure). There is its own section, in copycat82, too, where the plagiarism about resolution procedures is discussed. Here, within the section about locations, copycat82 mentions F, too, as a set of locations, where execution stops. That fits E-net'ism, in the sense that (F) is a subset of (S), the way (P) is a subset of (L) in E-nets.

within: copycat82 says (Fi) is similar to (F)

without: copycat82 says "SYSTEM is only used for subcomponents, i.e: mostly, not globally.

Therefore, we infer that copycat82 does not mean anything other than what NN73/VD78 (macro) subnets do/mean with tokens entrance/exit through subnets, when it tells about "final places." It is the output-locations from the macro, in question, and/or equivalently, the idle place of a VD78 subnet (coupled with any places that keep token(s) when that subnet is not fired/busy).

In other words, although copycat82 employs vague sentences, as if to sound "more generalized" than the others, it is stuck at what the others may meaningfully do. No other option is discussed in copycat82.

SARA CFA highlights-certain-states. But the copycat82 terms used as "execution-stops," is irrelevant, unless all possibilities (in reachability test) have been already exhausted. i.e: We may list a few possible states that we would prefer to know about, when they may occur, but most often, it may not be feasible to manually list the exclusive set of execution-stopper states. Not to mention that, the sentence itself appears vague/faulty in copycat82/83. Does it allow alternative last-states (subset of power set), or only a single possible last-state (with the listed state-variables to be on)? Even if it were to be corrected, though, it would not possibly tell about anything more than what prior art had already used.