Before any conviction, the risk of decline: what is the limit if this proof claims to create an equivalence rather than reveal it?
The idea that the demonstration could generate existence seems to me a condition too optimistic.
If the link between KKT sensitivities and fixed points did not exist before, then what were the underlying mechanisms?
It's like believing that a new regulation on oil quotas creates Asian demand, when it only frames or redirects it.
A threshold of credibility is exceeded when a proof is regarded as an act of creation.