Disappointing lack of "Why" in an article that starts with it. Are they actually doing something new and novel, or are they just absorbing that "a=b as was pro

Disappointing lack of "Why" in an article that starts with it. Are they actually doing something new and novel, or are they just absorbing that "a=b as was proven in transcendental hyper-circular group theory; and b=c was proven in universal quantum superposition"; and they're the first to find the connection that a=c? And several of the problems are counterexamples, not novel proofs of correctness? Its fascinating either way, but it'd be nice to actually understand more of what is happening.