I explicitly called out the case where issues arise solely due to lack of compute in my original comment.
I never claimed that a simulation is required for proof, just that an unexpectedly broken (but correctly implemented) simulation demonstrates that the model is flawed.
No? It honestly seems like you're being intentionally obtuse. The simulation being correctly implemented is an underlying assumption; in the face of failure the implementer is stuck determining the most likely cause.
Take for example cryptographic primitives. We often rely on mathematical proofs of their various properties. Obviously there could be an error in those proofs in which case it is understood that the proof would no longer hold. But we double (and triple, and ...) check, and then we go ahead and use them on the assumption that they're correct.
I never claimed that a simulation is required for proof, just that an unexpectedly broken (but correctly implemented) simulation demonstrates that the model is flawed.