It superficially sounds like a series of server processes fronting actual database servers, which sounds like another layer of partition vulnerability and points of failure. But I also had similar high level concerns about the complexity of FoundationDB, people seem satisfied as to the validity of that architecture.
I fail to see how one would scale underlying resources if the persistence is done by various storage systems, and you'd be subject to limitations of those persistence engines. That sounds like a suspect claim, like the "Data Substrate" is a big distributed cache that scales in front of delayed persistence to an actual database. Again, sounds like oodles of opportunities for failure.
"Data substrate draws inspirations from the canonical design of single-node relational database management systems (RDBMS)." Look, I don't think a good distributed database starts from a CA system and bolts on partition tolerance. I get you can get far with big nodes, fast networks, and sharding but ... I mean, they talk about B+ trees but a foundational aspect of Cassandra and other distributed databases is that B+ trees don't scale past a certain point, because there exist trees so deep/tall that even modern hardware chokes on it, and updating the B+ tree with new data gets harder as it gets bigger.
As others have said, I'll leave it to Aphyr to possibly explain.