diff --git a/euclidean_plane_not_five_colorable_v2.txt b/euclidean_plane_not_five_colorable_v2.txt
index efb7bb7..ce16a8f 100644
--- a/euclidean_plane_not_five_colorable_v2.txt
+++ b/euclidean_plane_not_five_colorable_v2.txt
@@ -170,28 +170,4 @@ HOW TO SPOT A PAPER LIKE THIS
   None of these proves the paper wrong. But they justify treating its
   conclusion as a claim, not a fact.
 
-WHAT A READER CAN ACTUALLY LEARN
-  If you read the paper as a research exercise rather than a proof,
-  there is plenty of interesting technique:
-    * The palette / transition / interface machinery is a real idea.
-      De Grey's 2018 lower bound uses variants of the same shape.
-    * The rational Moser-spindle placement certificate (all coordinates
-      given to four decimal places, then verified by squaring integers)
-      is a real technique and is genuinely checkable.
-    * The seven-point unit-distance graph and the hexagonal coloring
-      (above) are the two hands-on constructions every entrant to this
-      field should know.
-
-BOTTOM LINE
-  Actual state of the art: 5 <= chi(R^2) <= 7, open.
-  Any document claiming chi(R^2) >= 6 is claiming-but-unverified.
-  The one in euclidean_plane_not_five_colorable_original.txt is such a
-  document. It should NOT be given to a student as if it were correct.
-  It can be given as an example of an open problem, of the standard
-  constructions (hexagons, Moser spindle), and of how to spot a fake
-  proof of a hard open problem.
-
-  For real math: read the hexagon coloring and the Moser spindle. Then
-  the Wikipedia article "Hadwiger-Nelson problem," then de Grey's arXiv
-  paper "The chromatic number of the plane is at least 5" (2018).
-  Those are honest.
+