there are no meaningful questions. The only way there are meaningful questions is if you think global cryptographers + governments are part of a cabal to build insecure schemes. The new schemes use

1. cryptography developed across the world, 2. the actual schemes were overwhelmingly by European authors 3. standardized by the US 4. other countries standardizations have been substantially similar (e.g. the ongoing Korean one, the German BSI's recommendations. China's CACR [had one with substantially similar schemes](https://www.sdxcentral.com/analysis/china-russia-to-adopt-sl...). Note that this is separate from a "standardization", which sounds like it is starting soon).

In particular, given that China + the US ended up with (essentially the same) underlying math, you'd have to have a very weird hypothetical scenario for the conclusion to not be "these seem secure", and instead "there is a global cabal pushing insecure schemes".

There are not in fact meaningful questions about whether the settled-on PQC constructions are secure, in the sense of "within the bounds of our current understanding of QC".

tbf - since we still don't know if p != np, there are still questions about if the current algorithms are secure also.