Yep, I know Paul Adams (used to work with him at Berkeley Lab) and that's exactly the paper he'd publish. If you read that paper carefully (as we all have, since it's the strongest we've seen from the crystallography community so far) they're basically saying the results from AF are absolutely excellent, and fit for purpose.
(put another way: if Paul publishes a paper saying your structure predictions have issues, and mostly finds tiny local issues and some distortion and domain orientation,r ather than absolutely incorrect fold prediction, it means your technique works really well, and people are just quibbling about details.)
(put another way: if Paul publishes a paper saying your structure predictions have issues, and mostly finds tiny local issues and some distortion and domain orientation,r ather than absolutely incorrect fold prediction, it means your technique works really well, and people are just quibbling about details.)