Several months ago a paper was posted at http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.4164 called "Another way of answering Henri Poincare's fundamental question." The author gave a talk on it today at my institution. If it's correct, it is a major breakthrough in terms of proof length (~10 pages). However, it is very outside my specialty. There's apparently been very little feedback, but the author is ok with public discussion. Therefore, can anyone say whether they have read the paper? Whether it is correct, missing details, clearly flawed, or what have you?

I had a quick look. Although I haven't found a specific error, as far as I can tell, he's not using the hypothesis of simpleconnectivity anywhere in an essential way. Even though he posits this as a hypothesis in Prop. 5.6, the proof of this proposition works for any manifold with 2sphere boundary (also, Prop. 4.4 works for any homology ball). Thus, in Step (4) of his proof of Prop. 5.8, when he refers to Prop. 5.6, this step is not making essential use of simpleconnectivity. 


I also Had a quick look (maybe a little less quick), and although I very much like the other answer, which illustrates that it may be difficult to fix, I may have found a more specific error, which may be more helpfull as an answer to the question. Firstly, I am a little confused as to what constitutes a stratification. I see two possibilities: 1) The one which is actually defined which allows the following stratification: $S_1=S_2=D^2\times [0,1]$ and they are glued along a closed disc in the interior of $D^2\times \{1\}$ of $S_1$ and the same disc in the interior of $D^2 \times \{0\}$ in $S_2$. 2) The one which I think is implied at some points: $S_i$ and $S_{i+1}$ may only be identified such that $U(S_i) \cup L(S_{i+1})$ is in fact a subsurface in the 3manifold. I will describe my problems related to both definitions: In the proof of prop 5.8 parts (234) he attaches "3cell"s (I would write 3disc as to avoid confusion with CW complex attachments of cells, or attach both a 2cell and a 3cell) $W$, and extends the stratification. If we work under definition 2) above then this seems generally impossible because you would often also have to attach it at the top of $S_{i+1}$ to get the extra surface assumption in 2). If we work under definition 1) above then this doesn't even make the new $F_{i+1}$ a surface in the simple example described above. 

