Thanks!
All the technobabble related to physics actually has meaning, although it might describe impossible things but I tried to make it scientifically accurate (as long as you accept there can be structure within quarks, which I think doesn't violate any laws of physics as long as the patterns "cancel out" so the quark flavour stays the same). The maths is not arbitrary either, the 'Monster Group' is a fascinating real thing.
The containment procedures are somewhat random though I have to admit, especially the part about the protective tiling. I just like the idea of a readily available supply of cheap 'multipurpose' deflection panels that includes a bunch of protective features, just for anomalies that are not completely figured out yet, and it seemed like a good way to drive the point home that resources are primarily allocated to dangerous items, leaving the harmless items a bit neglected.
I might have overused precise numerical values though (I felt like giving the number of bits in the message and the durations was something you would find in a technical description, but of course it glosses over many other stuff that could have numerical values so maybe I could ditch a few more specific numbers).
The document references are meant to show how the two competing schools of thought try to make their revisions hard to reject, and to avoid giving the impression that the Foundation would allow revisions that are not supported by facts… But I see how it can be annoying to read. That's how real-life scientists fight each other though as far as I know!