Ready.
Da80 introduces E-net (X-transition) and Petri net formalisms, within the same net model. Da80 keeps the E-net vs. Petri net transitions, (and implicitly, the locations/places), as different types of elements, through where, tokens flow with certain rules. i.e: The verifier does know an X-transition as different from a Petri net transition, and it is easy to tell which place/location is in/out of which type of transition.
How would a verifier know which copycat82 circles may be the "control state variables" (equivalent to E-net locations), as opposed to the "other (Petri net) places?" It does not appear possible to do, when the formalism lists only a single type of token-holder, S (pages 39-40), but the reachability-test (page 138) expects to know about two types of places.
Of course, this is easy to remedy, as we may let another type of place/location to exist, too. Or, the verifier may know about the difference of macro/subnet- vs. ordinary-transitions. But that is not what copycat82, the un-PhD, has published. Therefore, to remedy it this way, would only point out that, if we solve the problem of copycat82, it turns out to equal to Da80, here, too.
There are no examples in copycat82 which contain both types of transitions (ordinary and macro) together. All of the examples, except the figures which implement the input/output macros, contain only macro-transitions, as if that were [Macro] E-nets (or, SARA [SL]).
Therefore, there is a vagueness, whether it means to combine the two type of transitions (macro- and ordinary-transitions) together, at all - although it does mention them together, in reachability-test (page 138). But if macro- and ordinary-transitions may never be together, then we may examine some other explanation about the same words of copycat82. It turns out to be an unlikely alternative, though.