Found it interesting enough to track down and read the paper, it isn't paywalled BTW.
Disclaimer; in reading it I understood a third, could half follow another third and the final third was beyond me - so I'm not offering expert analysis here.
Thing is, he goes to pains to point out that this isn't a derivation of MOND - the article kind of sets it up as a red herring by pointing out that the result he's arrived at looks so close to the old MOND.
Also, he hasn't been able to apply the math to anything but the simplest cases in the paper, but those simplest cases are suggestive of the power of the theory if we were able to grapple with the knottier, non-perfectly-spherically-symmetric problems, or things that can reasonably be simplified to such.
Also the imprint of entropy being scrubbed (vaguely caught it from the paper) from the qubits that leads to the apparent extra gravity appears, in his formulation, to be resilient - it gets encoded in the space itself, rather than being explicitly and continually linked to the matter that gave rise to the effect - that's what he's referring to when he's saying in the OP that the gravitional lensing effect that appears as very strong evidence for CDM is capable of being explained in his framework.
Another thing, he also points out that it isn't within the scope of the theory yet to apply it to the very early universe, the math is, ah, tough. But it will be - in my opinion - very very interesting to see what falls out after someone has a crack at applying it.
Layman's perspective, if interested party - so take it for what it's worth.
But it's a theory well worth keeping an eye on.