I confess that I did not bother to read, nor will read the article again, but I was interested in whether footnote 8 (now footnote 9) remained. It does, and rather than link to this thread, or to what was offered by Carl in response, Larsen opts to ignore that and instead provide the link to the previous thread where Carl and members here discussed the information laid out in the preview of the publication (https://www.tolkienguide.com/modules/n ... p?topic_id=3727&start=200).

The original text read "We are also not told within the text (footnote 8) whether or not Tolkien’s answer was correct." with the revised text reading "In fact, the calculation was later shown to be correct to less than 30 digits." yet the footnote remains, reading "When I presented this paper at Oxonmoot 2022 an attendee afterwards shared with me that Hostetter has stated elsewhere that Tolkien did make errors in this long-division calculation but did not provide a reference". I find that far more disingenous than any of the assumptions made elsewhere in the paper as it retains the intention to mislead the reader into thinking that Carl has left information out purposely to drive a narrative that he did not present in NoME. I don't like those sort of antics. Meeting Carl's response head on and linking here to his comment, or better still deleting the footnote would have been a much better approach. As such I find the paper lacking on many fronts and I will leave it on that thought.