First, there is no Availability, because the solution requires a centralized Interloper service. There is some handwaving that the Interloper is distributed, but all of the arguments about maintaining the three databases consistent with each other only work if the Interloper can be assumed to have (distributed) consistency. Which is of course obvious - if you've solved distributed consistency, you can use it to make other things consistent. But this doesn't explain how to solve distributed consistency in the slightest.
Secondly, the described system doesn't actually offer partition tolerance:
> If one of the databases becomes unavailable (e.g. if it loses power or its network connection creating a “partition”) no harmful misalignment can be observed by any client, because the interloper disallows reads until everything is reported to be back in sync.
So if one database goes down/is disconnected, the whole system grinds to a halt. So, no partition tolerance.
The paper has a different problem. It seems you are redefining the notion of consistency because you don't like the definition used in the CAP theorem. But you don't actually disagree that no system can display what the CAP theorem calls "consistency" at the same time as availability and partition tolerance, you just don't think it's necessary. This is a defensible position (and one often taken by many distributed databases), but there is no reason to undermine others' work instead of simply saying so.
As more of a side note, the paper you wrote keeps referring to the CAP theorem as a conjecture, but it has in fact been formally proven in 2002 by Gilbert and Lynch. You don't seem to have a refutation of their proof, which you don't even cite.