[monktastic1]

> Yeah, I don’t get how you distinguish between a correct visual proof and a visual proof that looks right but doesn’t actually prove what it’s trying to prove.

This problem exists not only for visual proofs, but for standard written ones too.

[wat10000]

Not in the same way. For a written proof it can be hard but with effort and sufficient background knowledge you can figure out if it actually proves the statement or not. If the proof doesn’t prove the statement there will be a step that doesn’t follow from the rest of it. You may not be able to spot it but it can at least theoretically be spotted.