Just because something looks like a plum, it doesn't mean it's a brain. You created a plum. calling it a model for brain development is a bit of a stretch.

Problems to discuss in depth, before calling it a model of brain development:
1. What do the RD variables represent or stand for in the real world? What are the levels crossed? What would the parameters of the model represent?
2. What do the iteration steps represent?
3. What questions should experimentalists in brain development address? The article hints on none.
4. The comparison with pathologies does not validate the model. Of course there is 'variation' in a dimension defining degree of corrugation. To show 'statistical comparison', is too shallow a comparison.
5. The defining features of a brain are both constancy and variability. Any hints on where the constancy come from?

M.