A cited finiteness result is described as boundedness
Where the issue occurs
Section 1, paragraph following Corollary 1.2 · p. 2
This follows by combining Theorem 1.1 with the boundedness of Lagrangian-fibered symplectic varieties proved by Engel–Filipazzi–Greer–Mauri–Svaldi [11].
Theorem B of [11] gives finitely many locally trivial deformation classes, and the same page of [11] states that these varieties do not form a bounded family.
Issue & evidence
The unqualified “boundedness” description in the sentence after Corollary 1.2 is imprecise. EFGMS Theorem B gives finiteness of locally trivial deformation classes in fixed dimension, while its following paragraph explicitly distinguishes this from forming a bounded family. Your later formulation in Section 6 uses the needed finiteness conclusion, so this is a terminology issue. See EFGMS v1, page 3 and Definition 2.25.
Proposed repair by OSVerify
In the sentence after Corollary 1.2, replace “the boundedness of Lagrangian-fibered symplectic varieties” with “the finiteness, in each fixed dimension, of locally trivial deformation classes represented by primitive symplectic varieties admitting a Lagrangian fibration”. This matches the cited conclusion and the finiteness argument already given in Section 6.
Related context
Downstream use Section 6, opening paragraphs of the deduction of Corollary 1.2
The proof of Corollary 1.2 uses the finiteness consequence of [11, Theorem B and Corollary A.3]. This formulation is correct and is not challenged.