A possible syntactic inconsistency inside the P vs. NP formulation (zenodo.org)

This is not a proof or a claimed solution.

The manuscript attempts to point out that one syntactic assumption inside the standard P vs NP formulation may behave inconsistently when it is expanded structurally.

I would appreciate refutation, counterexamples, or clarification from those familiar with complexity theory or formal logic.

You should probably have linked the whole work which is briefly referenced at the end of the article, and isn't yet indexed by search engines. I found it by myself:

https://zenodo.org/records/18107880