I can't really tell what's going on here anymore but I don't think we're having a conversation. You're just describing something that's not in good faith here. You're letting "meaningful" do the heavy lifting here. Yes, of course everyone can distill a paper, but not every paper can be distilled and then accepted into publication. Frankly, because reviewers act like exactly this and place weird arbitrary bars on what it means to be good work forgetting that all works are incomplete and thus encouraging embellishing and lying and setting continually new absurd bars.

Stop doing gymnastics to protect a system or just respond to my actual critiques. There's no perfect system so you can even say my critiques are valid yet not enough of a concern to abandon or modify our current system. It's not an all or nothing situation here. But I don't need to be lectured on something this silly as "if you can't do it in 10 pages, you aren't doing it right." My claim was that there isn't a one size fits all standard. I stand buy that. You can respond to what I wrote but there's not a good "teaching moment" here.

If you just want to tell me how I'm wrong without listening to my actual concern then don't comment. You're creating noise and just an angrier internet. If you think I have failed to consider something and that thing is important, do lay it out. But communicate what that actually is rather than just saying "dumb." Give a real critique. The same goes for when you review. Don't be reviewer 2. Reviewer 2 just holds back science.