I worked with stroke centers, doctors, etc in building stroke access systems, and that doesn't fly with reality.
Number 1, is that its hard for patients to recognize they are having a stroke. so "If called promptly" is a bit of unrealistic idealism.
Although they say 4 hours, tPA administered after 1 hour has lost most of its benefit, and places that can do thrombectomy 24/7 (in US dedicated stroke centers) is not numerous. You are losing a lot of that hour just for time for the helicopter to warm up, find a spot, and land + your ambulance time getting to /stabilizing the patient.
I'm sure the patients on your beat had suitable access, but that's a bit of selectivity bias no? In the US, although the majority of the population is within the golden hour, there are still a ton of population that does not have access to a stroke center. I find it extremely hard to believe that this is not the case in Australia - where I have heard stories of people getting a finger cut off and having to drive 3 hours to the nearest hospital.
Our ambulances are equipped with r-tPA or similar (there is a tendency to avoid streptokinase as rural/indigenous populations have high exposure to streptococcus/hx rheumatic fever and therefore high risk of added complications) and in the event of STEMIs can be administered en route to ED. Similarly many peripheral sites will administer tenecteplase or similar in Emergency Departments as there are almost no sites that are set up to perform out-of-hours angioplasty once you are out of the major cities; even less chance for neuro-radiological intervention, I think there are only 6 or 7 sites in the country and they are all in major cities.
If his research does bear fruit, I could see it immediately becoming the standard of care in Australia outside of major centres