With Petri nets, it is two input places, pointing to a transition. What could be simpler? But copycat82 messes even with that. The "and" is confused between its specification, and its implementation. Its specification makes it fit the macro set, imitative of the E-nets and/or SARA, as those standardize all behavior to occur at the transitions/nodes, instead of Petri net way. Its implementation is exactly Petri nets, though. With that implementation, the "overall" statements about macros, lead to absurdity.
With Petri nets, preferences/alternatives vs. synchronization, are at places vs. transitions, respectively. To pull everything to the same shape, either preferences must be added a wasted transition, or the synchronizations must be added a wasted place. To imitate E-net and/or SARA, copycat82 must do the latter. i.e: copycat82 ignores the consequences of its cut-and-paste wishes.