A nonspecialist such as Stewart may or may not have contributed to the paper. All the evidence we have now is her name on the paper (for which there is obvious

A nonspecialist such as Stewart may or may not have contributed to the paper. All the evidence we have now is her name on the paper (for which there is obviously a strong propaganda/PR incentive for all authors, so that evidence should be at least partially discounted). I certainly wouldn't consider this (fairly thin) body of evidence dispositive in an unusual situation such as this. I'd be more convinced by e.g. a string of commits on the paper's repo coming from her account (if we were confident that her account was really hers). The parent's skepticism seems to me entirely warranted, given the currently available evidence, and I don't think it should be downvoted.