For a verifier to verify a net, any macro (if without reduction) in it, needs replacement with the equivalent subnet. But copycat82 ignores any such need about the hierarchy of (sub)macros ("component"s), although that is ultimately necessary, to avoid the enormous vagueness and/or complexity.
The only attempt to transform a net, by copycat82, is to publish (on its pages, 129, 130, and 132.), the (trivial and faultfull) implementations of the input/output macros (except the "superscript" operator). But, this itself leads to a lot of problems.
That means, copycat82 can neither think about the macro-needs, nor implement even a few examples. This page, investigates the latter issue.
If we keep in mind that, one of the main reasons for the popularity of Petri nets is their strength at verification, the problem becomes clearer. (If a Ph.D. degree, is grantable to someone who cannot write (or, even understand to) correct Petri nets, who is supposed to model or verify anything? It is an obvious neglect, if not ignorance, by the jury, too.)
The plagiarism of copycat82 is a multiple-sources cut-and-paste, in general, and it involves mutual conflicts, between the copied sources, as it is also the case here, with its plagiarism at the input, and its plagiarism at the output.
E-nets have five primitives. With macros, NN73 presented the extended versions of those primitives (Fn, Yn, Jn, Xn, Jn), with its examples. Other goodies, such as a Q-macro location, were there, too.
Next, it is trivial to imitate SARA/UCLA input/output control-logic expressions, with such macros. That is nothing new, except the mess of input-"or", input-"xor", input-"priority", and its output-side mismatch: input vs. output. The input-"++" and output-"sequential-enable", also turn out to be no-brainers.
Being the worst of both-worlds,
The problems of any such contagious input/output macro, stand to contaminate their containers, too - without warning!
Petri (non-primitive) transitions must have a single input, and a single output synchronization transition. Although the very examples of copycat82 itself, contain separate (unsynchronized) entrance-exit, that cannot exist with a (Petri net) transition, whether such separate entrance-exit may be at the initial/last points of a transition, or alternatively (as an attempt to imitate SARA-SL socket-calls), at some intermediate point. An insistence with such separatism, explodes the possibilities for verifying. (Needs a vertical-specification language, with its own complexities, while it attempts to isolate subnets as macros. The presented input/output macros are not sufficient for that purpose. They cannot represent non-properness, deadness, etc.) It is not a Petri net verifier, any way. The Petri net verifier expectancy is to find a transition to remove/deposit, either all, or none.