Did you review them? Look at the conclusions from Matricciani and De Caro:
From their mathematical analysis: “In conclusion, what do these findings mean? That Maria Valtorta is such a good writer to be able to modulate the linguistic parameters in so many different ways and as a function of character of the plot and type of literary text, so as to cover almost the entire range of the Italian literature? Or that visions and dictations really occurred and she was only a mystical, very intelligent and talented ‘writing tool’? Of course, no answer grounded in science can be given to the latter question.”
From their discussion of literary fiction or ancient astronomical and meteorological observations: “In conclusion, if from one hand the scientific inquire has evidenced all the surprising and unexpected results reported and discussed in this paper, on the other hand our actual scientific knowledge cannot readily explain how these results are possible.”
So Matricciani and De Caro concluded that science could not answer their questions, only indicate remarkable things about her writing. Yet you consider their findings to be scientific proof?
The words you quote from Prof. Brodeur are attestation to her character, not proof that the writings have a supernatural origin. He says that she (I paraphrase) that was too saintly to be deluded or insane, hence his opinion that she really received divine dictation. This is his opinion; it court he would be called a character witness. His opinion is not proof that the writings are supernatural.
In “Maria Valtorta was an Eye-Witness to the First Century Life and Ministry of Our Lord Jesus! Her Numerous Strikingly Accurate Descriptions of First Century Palestine Prove it!”
David J. Webster presented his evidence that supports his claim. He presented no opposing evidence. That is not science.
Only two of these things you call “scientific proof” even used a scientific approach, and the authors concluded that science could not answer the question.
Another expressed his opinion of Valtorta’s character. It might be evidence in favor of the claims that her writing was supernatural, but it is not scientific proof.
And Webster presented only evidence that supports his assertion. Evidence of unexplained things in Valtorta’s writing, perhaps. Science, no. Scientific proof, no.
Matricciani and De Caro seem to say that science cannot answer questions of whether Valtorta’s writings had a supernatural source. I concur.
