Peter Woit says: March 19, 2021 at 10:25 am
On the other hand, the names of the committee at PRIMS that approved the paper were published with the paper.
Those mathematicians agreed to publicly put their reputation behind an approval of the proof. It seems to me that they’re the ones who need to provide an explanation.
They have decided based on some argument that Scholze-Stix are wrong and the consensus of the arithmetic geometry community is wrong.
What is that argument? Is it Mochizuki’s argument that Scholze-Stix are incompetent? Is it something else?
If it’s based on a report from a referee, they should be able to provide the substantive part of that report, stripped of the identity of the referee.

https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=12220