Just to clarify, in our initial reviews when the PEP PR was first submitted, we stated up front to the author that the PEP looked to need substantial re-work (and a sponsor, of course) to be considered for initial acceptance, pointing out the more salient issues; and suggested that they close the PR and discuss and iterate on it in a more appropriate venue (e.g. this thread, appropriately retitled), and then re-submit it once it’s complete and ready for official publication. I was going to post such on this thread as well, but held off repeating it here since others had already mentioned it, to avoid coming across as too harsh.
Also, my comment on a more appropriate thread responds to this further, specifically our new PR template checklist for new PEPs to help prevent this, and clarifying what happened with the PEP number.
If the PEP is already merged, then readers should of course be referred to the canonical, up-to-date, properly rendered version, rather than dumping an extra raw copy here (and plenty not to; see above). If it’s in-PR, the rendered preview should be linked, and otherwise, linking to a Gist or GitHub file in a fork branch is suggested for the benefits above.