I'm diving in to the book right now. This may be a little premature, but I'm (currently) softly critical of exactly one aspect of the book -- the portrayal of violence (note: not crime).
One of the fears of the 80s that's grown stale in the Cyberpunk genre is the suburban hysterics that "inner city violence will spread and be inflicted on us all"; Arcon seems to portray that directly, widely, and unashamedly. It reasons it well and it makes sense for a world that is more or less a disaster zone, but (at least not in the section titled "Violence and Crime in Arcon") not without overlooking some core things.
Using Compton in the 80s as an example; the majority of violence in Compton was gang warfare related -- local power struggles. It wasn't violence that was occurring without context; it was the marginalized fighting for authority in a power vacuum, where law was unwilling or unable or unwanting to step in, and where their communities were left to rot. The portrayal of violence in Arcon seems to want to show these groups struggling for power as wholly bad, and not victims of circumstance. I think it's having difficulty divorcing this violence from the "good vs. evil" trope that emerged in all TTRPGs in the 80s. It's further accentuated by the lack of a prison system in the world (when for-profit prisons are a massive aspect of a capitalistic nightmare world and a key part of class warfare).
Take from that what you will. Really digging the book outside of that, and I'm curious if it gets fleshed out later. Cheers!