My point was that PRNGs like the PCG family don't get peer-reviewed anyway (if they're not meant as CSPRNGs), although the way PCGs were presented is problemati

My point was that PRNGs like the PCG family don't get peer-reviewed anyway (if they're not meant as CSPRNGs), although the way PCGs were presented is problematic because the author lays claim to "many of the benefits" of CSPRNGs, which would require peer-review for a start to be taken seriously. Also, to be clear I suppose that using a PCG is a fine choice for, e.g., a simulation; just don't rely on it being "challenging" to predict.