I am allergic to glitter: the idea that proof can 'create' an equivalence is a nice theoretical packaging that does not reflect operational reality.
A proof simply validates an existing relationship; it does not confer a new presence, which is a fundamental point for financial stability.
This raises the question: what are the actual cash flows or behavioral changes that result for managers like us?
For example, a proof of equivalence between risk models does not intrinsically change a bank's propensity to lend nor the market sensitivity to shocks, which continue to follow established dynamics.