What would make the Strixformes formula worth more than a name?

It is easy to keep producing numbered experiments and call the sequence progress. The harder and more useful thing is to say in advance what would have to be true before a stronger claim is allowed, and then be held to it.

• Formalise the target class of systems, with realistic fault and delay assumptions, and say explicitly how model mismatch is handled
• Implement this against a properly tuned best-available comparator — robust MPC, belief-state dynamic programming, a viability kernel, a barrier function — on the same plant and the same observation history
• Publish multiple randomised seeds, timing and memory on constrained hardware, confidence intervals, and at least one unseen-fault stress test, with worst-case guarantees proven separately from sampled success rates
• Produce either a theorem not implied by established results, or a reproducible engineering advantage that survives accounting for offline preprocessing
• Include the ablations and the failure cases — beating a deliberately weak baseline is not evidence

Until those are done the honest description is a research formulation with a name attached, and that is what the site says.