Today, the beginning of ‘the uptrend’, page-167

Jumping right to the most expensive architecture (so-called P4, electric rear axle)!?!
That should set off some alarms for the intelligent reader.

Calling it "highly cost-effective", yet there are no discussions of cost whatsoever.

"Doing so yielded an average fuel economy of 54mpg (4.3 liters/100km), thus providing a 60% fuel economy improvement over conventional ICE vehicle with base 33mpg (7.2 liters/100km)."

33 mpg ICE vehicle - this is a light vehicle. Like a Toyota Corolla or Honda Civic; both of which are priced ~$20,000. The article's proposed conversion, should they ever design such a vehicle, is going to add a lot, like $10,000.
~Adding a 2-3X larger battery (25kW, vs typical <10kW MHEV battery). Such a battery would need to be about 12kWh, I believe; at $250/kWh (being extremely generous, assuming mass production), that's $3000. Author uses a simulated battery; suggests no cost range.
~Adding an electric drive axle (they never mention the boost power rating) is going to cost at least another $5000, I estimate. The article mentions dual motors in one place; suggests MGUs at every wheel in another. Again, not a real vehicle.​

The vehicle discussed in the article is simulated, not real; no costs are presented.
That's just two of a number of reasons this article does not provide any support whatsoever for your "highly cost-effective" 48VMH dreams of conquest.

If you came to a meeting at my company, you would be seen to have embarrassed yourself by such a presentation; that's not an insult, it's a fact based on facts and logic.