Ready.
The components at this level have no tokens within themselves. Indeed, even the token that was there at the input place "start1" is not there anymore. And with or without that, indeed, this level is also a deadlock. Indeed, except for the C12, not a single one of the subcomponents may even start. And then, all it can do is to place a token to "enable" either preq or prep, but because both of them also have other input places to be enabled, neither of those subcomponents are enabled, indeed. All that can happen is that tokens will accumulate as long as the C12 could get some external input. (And as we have observed in Fig.6.4, no such external input will be coming in, anyway.)
Furthermore, as a point of representation, we observe eight variables a in a box named LD which is representing shared-memory. One of the variables is a semaphore variable without any corresponding Petri net token-flows identifiable. Indeed, the later figure will show this lack of correspondence more clearly.
Another variable is an array, and there are six other variables; eight, in all. A single box is holding all of them, and pointing to the three components pcs, prep, preq, both as input and output, and the arrows are making several turns within the component C1 to point to their destinations. All in all, there are only five subcomponents and a data box, and the figure is already crowded.
In other words, not only that the pulling-in of the data-flow graph deserves at most the name make-up, but also, the author(s) even oneself/themselves do not appear to like the idea, and the final result is even more removed than the Valette and Diaz (1978) paper. In that paper, the data-flow graph was kept separate, and the relating was being done with labels (pointers). In that case, the item-differentiation could be one-to-one. Here, after once having taxed the drawing space by pulling-in the full graph, everything degenerates to pointing a single box that contains all the variable names, including a semaphore variable. Is this progress?
In this case, even for a multicomputer configuration with shared memory, the whole thing is swept under a rug. What if the other complications were also to be cared for? For example, re-shuffling of data among services, over a computer network. Or, several services, maybe fifty or more, each needing data from some others. Keeping a list of pointers makes much more sense, rathe than having arrows taking turns around.