Not only the answers, but even the questions are from prior art. The question is, then, if you do not mean to improve anything, if you do not really miss anything, why bother pretend publishing a Ph.D. and/or a research paper?
The only thing that sounds foreign, in an E-net (or, Petri net) context, is left foreign, any way. That is the mentioned "algebraic abstract-data-types" of Guttag. Presumably, it would be yet-another-programming-language that would manage, within/around a resoultion-procedure, but there are not even any examples for it.
Inferrably, copycat82 did not need/mind anything about it. Obviously not needed by the PhD recipient? No sense of purpose for it?
Or else, is it only a tool to leave the examples vague? i.e: It is for avoiding a formalisn, not the vice versa. For example, the data-box "BUF" is only to be guessed-about, by the readers. No formal anything, in copycat82/83 about it. Not even a single simple type is studied, for anything that you would not be doing with E-nets, already (see NN73).
NN73 had already published, with macros and resolution procedures, about defining new abstractions, such as Q-macro location, RH the resource-handler transition, the extended versions of the primitives, such as Fn-transition, Xn-transition, etc. Even these are missing ("except" the vague employment of "BUF?") in copycat82/83. Not to mention the assertional-proofs with predicates, at the third-level of Valette's PhD (as referred to, in VD78).