I think there is some conflation going on here. Referee #1 is taking issue with the methodology to demonstrate quantum advantage, not the technology itself. (The referee states being impressed with the technology itself.) I agree that demonstrating quantum advantage is messy, and the methodology here is convoluted. Essentially you're trying to prove you got a right answer in an environment where no other technology is able to check your answer, and that's never going to be clean. Reviewer 2 "extremely impressive experiment", etc. I think I read the word impressed 20 or 30 times in the reviews. Or course on the fringes of every field you get the bullshit callers (I remember them very well in the world of machine learning 10 years go; they are all very quiet now) but the general the bullshit callers are on the fringe here. I don't think there's any question in the field at large whether 2025 was a breakthrough year, particularly with what Harvard and all demonstrated in December. You state you've concluded it's bullshit. That's seems rather close minded, but fair enough. In that case the only thing is to wait for the results of the experiments in 2026. If something happens that makes it pretty obvious that this is potentially a very real thread to encryption over the next 10 years I'll jump back on this thread to see what you think.