I do, at the start of the second paragraph:
GAE is dedicated to showing how the traditional biblical understanding of Adam and Eve, as the unique, specially-created progenitors of humanity, can be reconciled with the findings of genetics and evolutionary theory, or what Swamidass calls “evolutionary science.”
As for “my thoughts on the actual thesis,” I’m unpersuaded, obviously – but mostly indifferent. The thesis of GAE lies downstream logically and evidentially of MN and common descent (whether UCD, or the common descent of the primates, is immaterial). As I find both MN and common descent (at the scale taken as given by GAE) to be false, GAE is not a proposal of any interest to me. I tried to make that plain in the last sentence of my review:
Let go of MN…and consider that CA [CD] might be false, in the light of new evidence, and we can talk. Otherwise, there isn’t much to discuss.