Interesting, given the arduous history of 'lo'. Assuming that 'zo'e' is here used in the sense of "the contextually specified thing", which is a change (restriction) from CLL, this 'lo' no longer does the job that led to the argument for its acceptance, since 'lo broda cu broda' is now a tautology, unless I've missed something crucial. 'lo broda' was meant, in most stages of the argument, including the last (I thought) to cover the semantic range of English "a broda", "the broda", "brodas" and "broda" in the non definite senses. But at least the last of these may include in the referent of 'lo broda' things which are not broda in any sense, but rather, for example, broda bits.
(There was broda all over my bumper after I plowed into a herd of brodas.)
This possibility comes out in the technical definition of 'lo broda' as the salient node in the upward lattice of the field of jest (me) on the set of brodas (in the domain). Of course, this possibility does also rely on there not being any absolute individuals, since me here extends below things which are brodas (individual brodas still have members, they just aren't brodas).