While the research appears well-considered and the article does indeed appear to make a valid conjecture, I'm a bit put off by the fact that the very first exam

While the research appears well-considered and the article does indeed appear to make a valid conjecture, I'm a bit put off by the fact that the very first example of simplified "legalese" (re: severance payments, in the introduction) loses quite a bit of fidelity compared to the original. It even adds some major points for potential litigation due to ambiguous verbiage. Rephrased, even the PIs seem to have trouble parsing legalese. That doesn't invalidate the conclusion of the research, but it does highlight the need for some additional peer review.