Who has what incentive to consider formal proof as an intrinsic creation rather than a useful clarification?
The balance here is that the proof of equivalence for the mirror gradient reveals a correlation; it does not generate it ex nihilo; preexisting conditions are crucial.
If everyone acted as if the proof alone was sufficient, we would ignore operational limits, creating a risk of strategic error.
For example, the equivalence between physical gold and futures contracts on the COMEX is proven, but if the logistics of Brazilian delivery fail at a bottleneck point, the theoretical equivalence will have no practical meaning on the spot prices.
The gain lies in understanding the conditions of application, not in deifying the proof.