At a glance the analysis seems like it could be interesting, but digging in, I'm struggling with the article.

First of all, I can only take so many "the hard case", "the fun part" and "the real test" before you've exhausted my attention to what these phrasings suggest are exceptionally interesting things.

Second,

> Scramble the Go program's wiring, keeping how many calls each function makes, and it drops to 39%: the wiring itself carries much of the signal.

What wiring? What signal? The rest of the article refers frequently to these completely useless analogies without ever clarifying what they mean. After scratching my head over it for a while I'm only guessing that the "wiring" refers to function names and "signal" to their bodies? Why not refer to these very basic, simple concepts as they are? I could understand coming up with analogies (good ones though, not awful ones like these) if you were writing for a non-technical audience, but you're not.

> Across languages only the wiring carries a signal, and only for the closer translations.

WTF does this even mean?

> he Scheme and Go translations keep the original's wiring as far above chance as Chocolate Doom does. The Dart translation keeps some. The Fortran, Java, Kotlin and C# translations keep none, and programs written from scratch, or not related to DOOM at all, sit at chance, as they should. Don't take our word for it: draw the maps yourself.

Sit at chance? Why shouldn't I trust your word for it if I can trust your diagrams?

Please, if you want me to think something is interesting, the least convincing thing you can do is to offload writing about it to whatever trite generator shat this out.