Ready.
copycat82 is patchy, vague, and immensely faulty. I employ a variety of approaches to make this clear to everyone, and to let my further arguments stand on this base of my solid presentations - available as the case-study about copycat82/83
It makes sense to match against copycat82, at its own patchiness - even if not with its vagueness, and faultiness. Therefore, this section publishes, page by page, raw dumps of my fact-filled commentary.
If the content is not familiar, the reader should first read about the prior art, literature published in the decade before copycat82. This should suffice, because copycat82 plagiarizes, any way. It only renames a few, and cuts-and-pastes a few.
There is also a starter's kit at this site.
For those who have the copycat82-text available, this section may be especially valuable, not to get lost among copycat82's false claims, faultiness, self-contradictions, etc. I present evidence upon evidence, against each page of copycat82, as raw dumps - with links to other pages, and sections, at this site. Thereby, you can keep in touch with the other sections, at this site, whichever page you start at. i.e: What problems, in fact, exist at that page, and how it relates to copycat82's overall failure.
The page numbers that are clickable, are the already published (web) pages. If you are interested about a page that is not published, yet, you may ask for it.
The papers listed in the literature overview sections of copycat82, are only to be not cited later in copycat82. That implies, their relevance is supposed to be ending there. No compare-and-contrast, with whatever copycat82 itself claims to be its own - neither at the introductory sections, nor at the conclusion. Doing that, in fact, would reveal that copycat82 plagiarizes - as we discover it, ourselves, at this site.
Petri nets are analyzeable, verifiable - mostly, with the reachability test. The vagueness introduced by copycat82, loses that ability, though. The (implicit, unstated) assumption of of careless-extensibility, turns out to be FALSE. There are no proofs-of-correct-operation in copycat82, and now, when we arrive at the fifth section, we find out that, in fact faultiness is the canon, in copycat82. The "verifiability" is degenerate, because the differences from ordinary Petri nets, are not dealth with properly.
The "example applications" both deadlock, at their first (outermost) figures. They keep being faulty, in other figures, too. I call some of the errors, of copycat82, the standard errors, because those examples themselves suffice to demonstrate the worthlessness, the unworkability, of copycat82. i.e: You do not even have to find any further method-breaking counter-examples. You find them presented in copycat82, itself - as if they were correct. No care to read, and reflect, even about its own examples? As such, how could that be even a high-school project - with such a massive faultiness? (Let alone, being a Ph.D. dissertation - with nothing new in it, any way.)
Not to mention the breaches of visual-presentation. e.g: Drawing multiple occurrences of the same element, within the same figure. As such, when you are shuffling pages, back and forth, to track the multiple figures, of an example, finding the element-X in figure-n "only" once, does not suffice. You have to exhaustively read every label in a figure, to make sure that there exists no other occurrence of that very same element. Not to mention the broken arcs.