[Article] Technical rebuttal: semantic density and the “Naibbe” verbosity constraint

[magnesium]

Has anyone here got access to the full text yet?

Yes. The extent of the treatment of the "toy model":

A useful way to frame the issue is through a toy model. Suppose a short ciphertext token is generated by combining four operations: one sign may represent either a single letter or a common digraph depending on position; one sign may function as a null; one positional marker may trigger the reversal of two adjacent plaintext elements; and one abbreviation rule may compress a frequent Latin sequence. Such a system would remain compact at the ciphertext level while allowing more plaintext material to be packed into a short token than a model that maps most ciphertext units to only one or two plaintext letters. Unlike the Naibbe cipher, which often expands plaintext into multiple glyphs per unit, this toy configuration allows a single token to encode multiple plaintext elements through positional and compressive rules, thereby increasing local information density without sacrificing compact ciphertext form. The point of this toy model is not to claim a decipherment. It is simply to show that the design space includes Voynich-like systems capable, in principle, of greater local information density than the Naibbe cipher appears to permit.

This does not strike me as much of a "technical rebuttal," truth be told. And to Torsten's point, the "toy model" is not quantitatively demonstrated to deliver all these properties. It should also be noted that Delgado's "toy model" is the general cipher architecture he claims underpins the VMS in his book Codex Obscura. (For those who haven't read that book, Delgado presents provisional decipherments of portions of the VMS...without ever revealing the exact text he is purportedly deciphering, let alone the specifics of the cipher.)