Exactly. I can see he has now online some slides and the mistake that 15d3 indicated is not present anymore. This is a no issue, I wonder why 7b50 bumped old news.
Just read this thread. Give me a break. Of course working papers will have the occasional errors in them and garbled proofs. It would only be interesting if it is affecting the substantive conclusion. I've heard nothing of that sort here, or in any case, that is the argument one should make rather than some dull monolog about this or that being "obviously wrong" ..