Not that I am aware of. This indeed is missing.
There are certainly minor differences, but not substantial ones. Gpuccio is very familiar with the fundamentals of ID and has made them his own.
By the way, has anyone heard from him? I’m a bit worried that I haven’t read anything from him since he last wrote here. Hope he’s all right.
What fundamentals? What does “made them his own” even mean?
It means that Gpuccio agrees with the fundamental tenets of ID. The expression « made them his own » is the translation of a french expression that doesn’t seem to work! I’m sorry I’m french 
No need to apologize for being French. It’s not even your fault. But which fundamental tenets? The only one I can think of is “God was involved in some unknown way.”
You express yourself in well crafted English 
, even when you are wrong 
.
Is there more than “Design is detectable”?
I had to ask above who he even was. He seems to have rather little presence outside the occasional discussion of his method.
There seems to be some sort of agreement that information and complexity are ‘special’ in a way that requires the proximate involvement of a designer.
My suspicion is that anything that at least three prominent ID advocates agree on may be considered to be a “tenet of ID”, and that anything that they agree on and emphasise as important is a “fundamental tenet of ID”. If there is any more formality or rigor to the process, it has not been given any prominence.
Thanks for the compliment.
What a funny coincidence. One S. Joshua @Swamidass is a co-author on this article from back in 2017:
Which says basically all the same things I’ve been saying, this time also supported by simulations:
Abstract
“Functional Information”—estimated from the mutual information of protein sequence alignments—has been proposed as a reliable way of estimating the number of proteins with a specified function and the consequent difficulty of evolving a new function. The fantastic rarity of functional proteins computed by this approach emboldens some to argue that evolution is impossible. Random searches, it seems, would have no hope of finding new functions. Here, we use simulations to demonstrate that sequence alignments are a poor estimate of functional information. The mutual information of sequence alignments fantastically underestimates of the true number of functional proteins. In addition to functional constraints, mutual information is also strongly influenced by a family’s history, mutational bias, and selection. Regardless, even if functional information could be reliably calculated, it tells us nothing about the difficulty of evolving new functions, because it does not estimate the distance between a new function and existing functions. Moreover, the pervasive observation of multifunctional proteins suggests that functions are actually very close to one another and abundant. Multifunctional proteins would be impossible if the FI argument against evolution were true.
[Mod edit to fix line formatting]
Rarely discussed is the basic irony that ID folks reject the very science of “evolutionary providence” - - while at the same time arguing that this same science PROVES design.
Beg pardon?