His model is way too weak.
We further assume that a leak of information from any conspirator is sufficient to expose the conspiracy and render it redundant
So any single person acting alone, of any stature in society, can bust open a conspiracy and get it on CNN?
The problems with this model are many:
1. It ignores authority and credibility of the leaker
2. It ignores the reach of the leaker
3. It does not define when a conspiracy theory has been proven (e.g. a reasonable definition is whether a specified percentage of the population understand the conspiracy to be true)
For example, to use one of the examples of a true conspiracy the author used, the NSA:
The National Security Agency (NSA) PRISM affair—The staggering extent of spying by the NSA and its allies on civilian internet users was exposed by contractor Edward Snowden in 2013.
That's just factually wrong. It was substantially exposed on PBS in 2007. Why am I quoting PBS? Because I know it is perceived as an authoritative source. Why do most people not know about this? Because PBS lacks the reach.
Both authoratativeness and reach are required to expose a conspiracy. And once these two elements are added into the model, then one is forced to accept a non-trivial definition of conspiracy-proven-true by setting a threshold of population who believes (and not simply saying one leaker implies the whole world instantaneously and fully believes).