TLDR: by re-deriving the periodic table of passive elements from first principles, it shows that memristors don't fit. The "missing fourth element" from Strukov's table is not really a missing type of a passive element. Rather, it shows that Strukov's table itself is wrong, that it's just a view of the standard C/R/I relationships that conflates two different ways of looking at resistance specifically (see especially https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-29394-7/figures/3 )
FWIW this does not diminish memristors as potentially industry-changing inventions, like transistors. But it denies them the status of fundamental, irreducible passive circuit elements, specifically, partly by showing that while fundamental elements are all connected by charge-voltage relationships (specifically, changes over time, like position/velocity/acceleration are in classical physics), memristors don't have a unique spot there; and also because fundamental elements can't be composed from each other, while the memristors demonstrated so far are "nonlinear composition of resistors with active hysteresis".