Referee reports on PRL submission LG18284

Inconsistency of the conventional theory of superconductivity

Submission
Referee A first report         Response to referee A first report
Referee B report         Response to referee B report
Editor decision 1         Response to Editor decision 1

Referee A second report         Response to referee A second report
Referee C report         Response to referee C report
Editor decision 2

Author's appeal         DEA's appeal response
Editor final decision         Response to Editor final decision

The "Editor final decision" was to reject the paper. I did not receive a response to my "Response to Editor final decision"

Subsequently, the paper was submitted to Europhysics Letters

Submission
Referee A report         Response to referee A report
Referee B report         Response to referee B report
Editor decision

I appealed the EPL editor's decision to reject the paper, and my appeal was forwarded to the Editor-in-Chief.
The Editor in Chief solicited the opinion of a third referee, who said "I also suspect something is amiss, but for yet another different reason... However, given that no consensus has formed about what is amiss, I recommend publishing this work, so further discussion can continue in public (including in the pages of this journal)."
On the basis of this report and his own judgement, the Editor in Chief made the bold decision to accept the paper for publication in Europhysics Letters.

The final version of the paper to be published is given below.
Inconsistency of the conventional theory of superconductivity

I hope readers that find something amiss with it will write a paper explaining why that is, or let me know about it so I write an erratum (with proper acknowledgement of course) if I agree.