Kinda the point though isn't it?

We're only reading a summary of the paper because apparently the authors aren't confident enough in its quality to release it publicly.

You can't claim that Google dismissed this paper out-of-hand while simultaneously saying "oh, but it's too much of a draft to release publicly". Uh, if it was too much of a draft for the public why shouldn't it be too drafty for Google? Are we really pretending that Google has lower standards of quality than the general public?

That, or Google is censoring the paper because of the conclusion it comes to, which doesn't align with their business interests.

If a company is paying a researcher a lofty salary (I am guessing ballpark mid six figures), and provides that researcher virtually unlimited tools and resources, shouldn't that company have a say in what material gets published by the researcher? Why shouldn't it have the ability to restrict research of dubious quality that makes borderline incorrect conclusions about the company?

I’m taking the article at face value, which states the authors think it’s too much of a draft.

I naively expected this article to include a link to the paper somewhere in it, so we could decide for ourselves. Oh well.