Then I would debate that the statement, "allowing it to scale to handle tens of thousands of transactions per second without impacting fault tolerance or decentralization", is u true.
The actual effect on fault tolerance and decentralization has to be put into context that currently over 50% of Bitcoin's hashpower comes from only 4 pools. As BlockReduce scales the node requirements to have a node which does partial state validation would be much less then a if Bitcoin scaled in its current state. That would mean that although there may be fewer people validating full state, there will be more people, and fewer pools validating partial state. I would argue that having partially validating mining nodes is advantageous over having a deminimis number of pools. Having smaller economic entities decide on the fate of the protocol rather than a few large pools would be positive for the ecosystem.
You don't believe that that will centralize Bitcoin toward the miners? Or you don't believe that users/economic majority should have the ability to run their own full nodes?
I think that people often times fall into tired narratives about majority of users, and fairness, et cetera without fully considering what any of it really means, or why it might be good or bad. I would argue that if Bitcoin is meant to be censorship resistant and decentralized, that it must allow the greatest number of people to use it with the fewest intermediaries possible. Making low resource validation the primary focus of decentralization misses the point. If even 20% of a population self custodianed Bitcoin which they regularly used for transactions it would be effectively impossible to censor or outlaw. When we discuss decentralization taking into account the power of the network which scales should also be a consideration, not just how easily it is validated.