Even in commutative algebra, there is a fair amount of guesswork. If I tell you that 2+3=4 in an abelian group with {2,3,4}, then ask you what is 2+4, you will immediately guess 2+4=2. Its just what the millennials term "stupid obvious". Yeah you can do a lengthy proof on why 2+4=2. Proof: Its 2 because 4 must be the additive identity, and 4 is the additive identity because 2 & 3 are not, and they aren't because if 2 was then 2+3=3, and if 3 was then 2+3=2, but because I've told you 2+3=4, by closure 4 must be identity, which implies 2+4=2. That's the whole story. Literally no mathematician I know will sit down & write that lengthy proof I wrote. They'll just tell you 2+4=2, and if you pester them with "But why?" they'll say "Because" and excuse themselves :)

In an elementary group theory course this is the type of problem that would be given when groups are first introduced. It's a good homework/test question and just writing a*c = a as the answer would not suffice (depending on the level of the course and aim of the problem). The point at that level is for the student to learn how to justify their beliefs.

This is especially so if one were in a basic mathematical logic course. Of course, in an algebraic topology course where this group showed up it would be assumed that everyone knows how to find the answer and why. No justification would be needed.

The paper you cited supports what I've been saying. You can publish a paper that says, "Here is a counterexample." You can't publish a paper that says, "Here is a solution I guessed to be correct."

Any method of finding a counterexample is accepted. Guessing a solution is not.

EDIT: The paper linked to was published because it was a counterexample to a famous conjecture.

So you're saying that if they left out the "search on CDC" line the paper would not have been accepted.

No. I'm saying it would not have been published if it wasn't a counterexample.