They then argue that Winterberg's interpretation of the Hilbert paper was incorrect, that the lost part of the page was unlikely to have been consequential, and that much of Winterberg's reasoning about what could be in the missing piece was incorrect (down to noting Winterberg claims that 1/3 of the page was removed, when actually over half a page is missing total from the two cut off pages) and internally inconsistent.
They contend that Winterberg's interpretation of the Hilbert paper is flawed, arguing that the missing portion of the page was unlikely to be significant and that much of Winterberg's reasoning about what could be in the missing piece is faulty (including Winterberg's claim that 1/3 of the page was removed when over half a page is actually missing from both cut-off pages).