Do I remember a remark in "Sketch of a program" or "Letter to Faltings" correctly, that acc. to Grothendieck anabelian geometry should not only enable finiteness proofs, but a proof of FLT too? If yes, how?

Edit: In this transcript, Illusie makes a remark that Grothendieck looked for a connection between "FLT" and "higher stacks". BTW, here a note on (acc. to Illusie) Grothendieck's favored landscape.

Do I remember a remark in "Sketch of a program" or "Letter to Faltings" correctly, that acc. to Grothendieck anabelian geometry should not only enable finiteness proofs, but a proof of FLT too? If yes, how?

Edit: In this transcript, Illusie makes a remark that Grothendieck looked for a connection between "FLT" and "higher stacks". BTW, here a note on (acc. to Illusie) Grothendieck's favored landscape.

Do I remember a remark in "Sketch of a program" or "Letter to Faltings" correctly, that acc. to Grothendieck anabelian geometry should not only enable finiteness proofs, but a proof of FLT too? If yes, how?

Edit: This has nothing to do with anabelian issues, but sounds interesting and I don't see where else to include the link: "How we prove Fermat's Last Theorem these days ... a gentle survey on how FLT can be proven after the works of Khare, Taylor, Wintenberger et al. on Serre’s Conjecture. The proof is still quite technical, but new proofs involve less amount of ad hoc methods/facts, and could be understood as a combination of “standard” techniques that are conceptually established and generalized. Intended for non-experts." Could someone tell us more about that?

Do I remember a remark in "Sketch of a program" or "Letter to Faltings" correctly, that acc. to Grothendieck anabelian geometry should not only enable finiteness proofs, but a proof of FLT too? If yes, how?

Edit: In this transcript, Illusie makes a remark that Grothendieck looked for a connection between "FLT" and "higher stacks". BTW, here a note on (acc. to Illusie) Grothendieck's favored landscape.