Need advice for testing of hypotheses related to the self-citation method

[Jorge_Stolfi]

My theory is that the Voynich text was generated using the Self-Citation Method

That thesis (HS) is even stronger than what I denoted by TTT (just "the VMS is a hoax"), and you seem to be referring to as C. (Is this correct?)

Your proposition A ("context-dependent self-similarity features are a defining characteristic for the Voynich text") is similar to mine except for the word "defining"; but it does not seem to matter.  Proposition B seem to be the same: "[the output of the SCM] is like Voynichese according to some statistics, including similar repetition patterns [of the kind that were looked for].  OK.

[the SCM] also even quantitatively reproduces the key statistical properties. In particular, we were able to demonstrate that our sample 'facsimile' text fulfills both of Zipf’s laws

This is all part of proposition B.  It reproduces the "context-dependent self-similarity features" because it was designed to do so.  Satisfying Zipf laws, character entropy, etc is quite expected since it would preserve any properties of whatever text it was seeded with.  Like the output of a Markov chain would.

we explicitly acknowledge that A and B do not imply C

 
OK, so we agree on that.  Then, if B is excluded, the argument for your theory HS ("hoax by SCM") seems to be that it 

is fully compatible with the historical background [...]. Following Occam’s principle, this theory provides the optimal hypothesis available to explain all facts currently known about the VMS.

Theory HS only explains the "context-dependent self-similarity features" of the text.  It does not explain a thousand other properties of the book, beginning with why one would create that sort of book, invent that script, draw those figures, etc.  And it does not explain why the author would chose a seed text with all the other weird statistical and structural properties of Voynichese.   Theory HS implies that there must have been circumstances and motives that account for all that.  Once you make explicit the hypothesis that (HS0) "the situation was such that it led the Author to all those thousand choices when he set out to perpetrate his hoax", theory HS clearly fails Occam's test.

Said more simply: conclusion C does not provide a basis for evaluating the validity of either A or B.

But that is not the point.  We agree that A and B are true.  The question is the reverse: are A and B sufficient to make C (or HS) likely?