Jason's efforts present an inevidable challange to our efforts to build a peer to peer assessed open and networked PhD. On the one hand, Peter and I seem to be the only peer reviewers available to Jason at the moment, and our lack of familiarity with Peter's work (compared to each others) means Jason needs to be extra thorough in his efforts if we two reviewers can be of any assistance. On another hand, Jason's method and style for presenting his evidence is both brief and without hyperlinks or extended referencing. It leads me (as just one reveiwer) to consider his effort too brief, and without enough depth in reference. But again, this is coming from someone not working in his field and unfamiliar with his history.
My advice Jason, is to try and connect with others working in your area (both supporters and critics), and either engage them on your blog, and/or encourage them into this ONPhD space so to improve your chances of a fair and relevant review. Peter and I continue to promote the ONPhD project, and slowly more and more people are following this P2PU Challenge, but it looks like being a long road.
You may have noticed in my own works in progress on Wikiversity, I actively seek peer review, and document such contributions on the talk page of each project. Foir example: http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Leighblackall/PhD
I hope this reply is of some use and encouragement Jason (and others). I don't mean to position myself as some kind of authority, merely to offer my perspective after attempting to review work to the critieria we've set ourselves in this Challange and its Tasks.