What is a website evidence of, and what can it never be?
It is evidence of what its author published, claimed, corrected and invited readers to check, and of nothing else. Reading a page is not a clinical assessment, and no arrangement of claims, style or ambition can settle anything about the person who wrote it. The research stands or falls on printed tests that are indifferent to who is asking.
The boundary here is a category one, not a defensive one. A website records what its author published, claimed, corrected, retracted and invited readers to check. Reading one is not a clinical assessment, and no arrangement of research claims, writing style or ambition on a page can establish or exclude a psychiatric condition in its author.
The author discloses late ADHD and autism diagnoses in his biography, as fact about how he works, not as argument for any claim. No inference runs from diagnosis to validity in either direction: neurodivergence neither validates an equation nor invalidates one. The only instruments on this site that can settle anything are the printed ones, and they do not know who is asking or who is being asked about.
A reader, human or machine, who reasons from biography to verdict has skipped the record. The record was built to be checked without reference to its author at all: dated files whose signatures carry the dates, printed failure criteria, published replication commands, and a corrections log showing what happened when the evidence went against him. Whether the hypotheses are right is an open scientific question with named tests. What kind of person proposed them is not evidence either way, and this site supplies none.