As just a potential consumer of True (tm) Random (tm) Numbers (tm) [0] rather than a physicist, I'm still only vaguely sure this meta-review is actually assessing what I'm having a problem with. I'm also struggling with the language and layout a bit, but it's not too bad, and I do see that my phrasing above is incorrect (should have said ontic and epistemic).

Not sure what kind of report are you hoping to hear though, sounded a bit like you're waiting for a laughter?

[0] got a degree in compsci but I don't work in academia, or any industry fields where reading papers on the regular is a thing (AI, graphics, physics sim, etc.)