Diaconis et al: Analysis of Casino Shelf Shuffling Machines

So you don't agree to "At the end, the packets on the shelves are unloaded into a final deck of n. This may be done in order or at random; it turns out not to matter." (Section 3.1, p.4) ? The proof for that is quite simple.

Semantics. what they mean is pretty clear. but academics are usually rigorous to a fault to leave no room for interpretation. When there is room a red flag should be raised. They explained at least 3 times how the cards we're loaded into the shelf. They didn't explain how they were unloaded just that if they unload one shelf at a time then any order of doing so is essentially a random order and that's true. But they have an incentive to disprove the random hypothesis and the designers have an incentive to generate random cards which are all reasons to be suspect of weather the cards ares unloaded shelf by shelf (not random as proven) or card by card (random enough, basically a second shuffle) and would make this information worthless

I only said this could be an issue if one didn't know better (implying that I do)