To me, 2027 looks like a case of writing the conclusion first and then trying to explain backwards how it happens.

If everything goes "perfectly", then the logic works (to an extent, but the increasing rate of returns is a suspicious assumption baked into it).

But everything must go perfectly to do that, including all the productivity multipliers being independent and the USA deciding to take this genuinely seriously (not fake seriously in the form of politicians saying "we're taking this seriously" and not doing much), and therefore no-expenses-spared rush the target like it's actually an existential threat. I see no way this would be a baseline scenario.