> Experiments 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6. All of these are technical breakthroughs
I haven't wrapped my head around 5 and 6 so maybe these are a bigger deal, but 1,2 and 3 are trivial. And the author's writing about 7 and 8 (which show that 7 is just directional ablation and nothing more), and the lack of prioritization (why put 7 and 8 in the paper at all if 5 and 6 are the big deal?) really doesn't inspire confidence in the paper as a whole.
I haven't wrapped my head around 5 and 6 so maybe these are a bigger deal, but 1,2 and 3 are trivial. And the author's writing about 7 and 8 (which show that 7 is just directional ablation and nothing more), and the lack of prioritization (why put 7 and 8 in the paper at all if 5 and 6 are the big deal?) really doesn't inspire confidence in the paper as a whole.