First of all, enthusiasm: the idea that proof can 'create' equivalence is a conceptual error that raises issues of mandate and compliance, even for theoretical structures. A mathematical demonstration is used to validate or formalize a pre-existing relationship; it is not its genesis, a fundamental distinction for our regulatory framework. The ASIC or the APRA are concerned with the robustness of existing models, not their generation ex nihilo by an article. For example, the relationship between a synthetic debt product and its underlyings is formalized by models, but this equivalence exists in the market de facto, independently of the formal proof.