That's not how this works, though. I don't care if the method is interesting. I care if it works. I can write an interesting proof that P=NP but that doesn't make it valid.

It's on the author to explain what they mean. Here, they haven't.

Claude didn't "think" anything

Does the fact that Claude wrote the paper help Claude to think the paper was interesting? <facepalm> I'd suggest sticking to your "I don't normally do this" idea

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim.

See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law -

> The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it.