Ready.
On page 27 of copycat82, there is only the "Fig.3.1. An example of a Petri net." This corresponds to the "Fig.1" of copycat83 (on its page 735).
It is a loop, but it is: Not proper. Not conservative. Dead(-upon-congestion). Unsafe.
There are three forked paths, at the starting transition. But at the end, only two paths get joined. In other words, at every turn, a token is stuck at, either the upper, or the lower paths/places. Only the middle-path constantly fires.
It is a design error, obviously. A repeating/circular system (a loop) with such problems, gets stuck, in a turn, or two.
It is dead/deadlocked/dumped with either of the interpretations of the vague 1-boundedness restriction the paper/PhD itself declares/imposes. i.e: Itself admits/accepts unsafe (i.e: not-1-bounded) nets as "design errors", but keeps committing such, in its own example.
It is from VD78 (page 188) that an unsafe net points out a design error, which copycat82 republishes the term from, but causes vagueness/problems even with the restriction, itself.
That Petri net example must be dumped, if the 1-boundedness, that copycat82 expects, as in its own words "it is a design error, and analysis cannot be continued" (on the pages: 138-139), means a dump-away policy about any net, that is not-1-bounded, at any possible point, while it is reachability-tested. This means a full-exclusion of any such possibility, because the reachability test verifies, non-deterministically, all the possible outcomes, from a marking. No way to avoid "by chance." (cf. the Murphy rule: "If it is possible to occur, it will.") This excludes any net with such problems as in "Fig.3.1." of copycat82. At the second iteration, that model is dumped.
If instead, we interpret that vague statement in a way to suggest the E-nets policy of wait-blocked, then only the transition that finds a token at its output location(s) would wait, until its firing would not cause any unsafety. This is how an E-net is 1-bounded. This policy lets more modeling possibilities. (Example.1: Modeling rush-hour traffic. Example.2: Modeling assembly lines, when the later worker(s) is/are possibly not fast enough.) i.e: Paths wait, until they may continue. But for this specific example, in "Fig.3.1," even such a policy would not save copycat82. The congestion does always pile up, turn after turn, and it is dead/deadlocked, sooner, or later.
At a first look, we could have noticed the similarity of the figure, in shape, to a VD78 subnet. Therefore, the correspondence of the place, at the leftmost end, the place named "Fullplace" to the VD78 idle-place, is rather obvious. But, as we have discussed, on this page, the similarity ends there, because that subnet has several problems, and violates the VD78 well-formedness conditions, too, thereby.