Normal peer review works by submitting the article to the appropriate journal, suggesting some preferred reviewers that have expertise in the subject, after which the rest of the process ideally is then orchestrated by an experienced editor.

If a journal receives a paper that is unreadable, it is outright rejected with the comment that it should be made readable, regardless the results in that paper. What is the point of having results if you are unable to convince your audience of those results? You could just as well just sit on them and never communicate them. What is harmful about this process?

Try thinking for just two seconds about what your process would result in, given the scale and amount of results here. You are basically asking for these results to become available to all experts only months / years from now, only after some select experts are chosen and first get to read these results. If there is any error or bias in that selection process, the whole thing is delayed even further or lost to the file drawer entirely. Or, since you say these are all unreadable, and should be rejected, you are in fact arguing these results should never be released at all.

Which is why it is obvious post-publication peer review is the only sane way to handle this. Formal peer review is not even remotely up to the task here.

Are we in a hurry then? Can you give examples of where important mathematical research was delayed because of peer review errors?

And yes, I am arguing that they should not be released if they cannot be verified within a reasonable amount of time.

Also, how will this impact PhD student who might need this research to get their career started. How will it affect the inflow of junior researchers?

By the way, your tone is very unpleasant. Go outside and touch grass, or have a wank for all I care. You are insufferable.