This was my point though. Not sure why you are disagreeing? The original argument was that there was no criteria for publication other than replication, or that is how I read it. I was refuting that.

Perelman was already working on an interesting problem, and wrote in ways that were less formal, but still academically sound, so of course he did not need to publish it. What about the people working on problems that are not interesting? You don't think they encounter significant difficulties getting their work out there?