From the paper:
'Little disagreement exists today about complementarity's importance and broad applicability in quantum science'
Personally I don't even understand complementary - but of course that may be a failing on my part despite reading advanced texts like Ballentine where its not even mentioned. The essence (one of them anyway - it's not just one thing) of science is doubt and my failing may not reflect the true situation. But what can be said is a number of very knowledgeable people that post here, many with doctorates and professorships don't think it makes that much sense either. Of course they could be wrong. Anyway little disagreement would not seem to be the actual situation - even in Bohr's time both Einstein and Dirac disagreed - Dirac - nothing but the math ma'am, nothing but the math, - leave this sort of stuff out of it. Although when pushed on the matter believe it or not he agreed with Einstein - strange but true:
https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/posc.2008.16.1.103?journalCode=posc
And no - I can't download the full paper - maybe some reader can and post it but the following gives an idea of Dirac's view in a discussion with Heisenberg:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.485.9188&rep=rep1&type=pdf
He likely held more to the onion with many layers idea of Feynman (who just had it as an idea of what nature could be like - he wasn't really interested one way or the other- he just wanted to know more about the world) and I think Gell-Mann as well holds the same view.
Einstein - well his view towards QM varied but eventually he came to accept it as correct - but incomplete - his view was encapsulated in the ensemble interpretation which does not have complementarity - although agnostic to it may be a better description
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensemble_interpretation
Here is my view. We have coins here in Australia - on one side you have a picture of the queen, on the other some animal. So sometimes, depending on which side is up its like a picture of the queen, or like a picture of an animal. So you could say the queen and the animal are complementary according to what I think Bohr is saying (as I said I don't really get it). But it's actually neither - its money - this complimentary business is just a verbose irrelevancy.
Just my view - and it may be wrong - but I just wanted to say the situation is not quite how the paper presents it in its abstract in my view.
I will read the full paper when I get a bit of time.
Added Later:
Scanned the paper - the math looks OK but their interpretation goes right over my head. I will never get complementary and the paper just reinforces it. Maybe someone else can - but for me - its a lost cause. I am forever stuck in the group - as the paper says - 'The long record of frustrating and conflicting opinions about the meaning of complementarity is common knowledge.' Strange though it also says, as I quoted at the start, 'Little disagreement exists today about complementary's importance and broad applicability in quantum science' These authors are obviously not nincompoops but is it only me that sees a contradiction here.
I wonder what some of the professors that post here would say if they were given it to referee?
Thanks
Bill