Well, looking at the testimonials page, the 1st thing I saw was an assortment of typos... For archiving purposes I'd want the providers to have an overwhelming obsession with detail, rather than a "good enough" mind set.
The second thing I saw is that it was developed by ATT, which is cool I guess from a tech viewpoint, but a bit worrisome when it comes to legal. Are viewers going to be available years from now, or the victim of lawsuits like the Lucent MS mp3 stuff?
The Wikipedia article was interesting, but misleading... PDF docs are made by a lot of different software since Adobe opened it up a bit. PDFs are text when text is available, often raster otherwise. In fact, AFAIK there's still no universally great trace software to convert scanned, raster images to vector. In that sense the comparison is faulty, as are stated size differences.
Common thought with video seems to be to retain the original, simply because the delivery format is subject to change over years. It makes sense to me to take the same approach with documents -- archive the original scans, save the OCR if performed, and use a compressed format for viewing.