Ready.
The "single" graph (the cut-and-paste monster of plagiarism) of copycat82, is a collapsed graph, with a lot of clutter, and vagueness. The co-existence of data with control, could suggest static-proofs with data, but data is not used that way by copycat82. It is the vice versa.
With such an excessive vagueness, of copycat82, only very superficial, if at all, proofs could be attempted. e.g: A prior art paper, VD78, keeps separate graphs (after LOGOS), to employ such proofs, as its second level of analysis - which copycat82 cannot do.
There are pages about the vagueness of copycat82. e.g: the complexity-explosion of copycat82, the fault-prone method of copycat82. Much of such vagueness applies at data-graph, too.
e.g: Upon being enabled once, any macro may let zero to infinite output-pulses. It may enable any of the possible output paths, infinite times. Such multiple steps of token outputs (enabled executions), would not let any (static) proofs, in most cases.
e.g: If any ADT may take jumps, upon a restriction-specification, how could a simple static-proof tell about nondetermism and/or nondeterminacy? Anything may occur, at any time. Tokens, at very separate locations, may at any moment, meet each other, upon such jumps.