The article reports a computational study accurately and with commendable restraint. It states up front that this is equations, not brain recordings, and flags missing anatomy (no layers, one inhibitory cell type, squid-based neuron). Numbers are detailed and consistent: 0.325 to 0.024 is indeed about a 93% drop. It candidly notes the model’s irregularity (0.27) falls short of living cortex (0.7–1.0), and that links to epilepsy and schizophrenia are hypothesis only. Weaknesses: the headline implies “steady vision may depend on constant control” more strongly than a simplified model supports, and “ordinary feedback loops” glosses over abstraction.