Rebuttal: the 'Astra can read and write weights to improve Qwen' framing is misleading

Matthew Honnibal argues the paper's abstract implies the MATH-500 jump (7.9% to 48.1%) came from just looking at raw weights, when the Qwen experiment actually used tools and code. The results might still be interesting, but the framing blends separate experiments into one headline. Is this a fair critique or nitpicking an abstract that nobody reads closely anyway?