It's too fast to pick up the slight anomaly of being 3:2 of 7 that fits over 4 of the main 7 notes with 3 of the real 7/16 notes left for the end of the fill.
Oh my god who cares. This is literally my only problem with mangini. He never once has talked about how a song FEELS. It's always about the polyrhythms and time signatures.
It's almost that because of the subjective, culture-based experience of music, feeling is not a thing. It's just a myth by bad musicians to justify their laziness and illiteracy. Theory analysis are the closest thing to any "objective" analysis of music, as a tool of teaching (and yes, I'm aware that music theory and its perception are bound to the subjective experience of humans). For people who actually care, Mangini doing rundowns of his ideas and compositional process is the closest that we have to seeing what is inside his mind when playing, saying "this grooves and has FEELING brooo" is useless information.
I don't want to look like a snob who only cares about theory, not at all, and many of my musical heroes don't have an extensive knowledge of music theory (or any at all). But Mangini was a teacher and one of the best music schools, and has an impressive grasp of complex concepts and can execute them flawlessly, it would be a waste if he only talked using meaningless terms.
It's not useless though, and that's an important point in this conversation that seems to be repeatedly missed. You can attribute it to whoever you want - me or Mangini or Paul Stanley or any of the thousands of people that have said it - but "I like what I like". For me personally, there's very little of this "objective" stuff - complexity, song lengths, who wrote it - that make a difference in what I end to listening to on the regular. I'm not that one dimensional, and most humans aren't*. I like things with deep theory, I like things that are nothing BUT feel, I hate things with theory and I hate things that are nothing but feel. It's not about EITHER of those things for some people. This idea that it's a binary two-variable equation - one or the other - is the REAL myth.
In my opinion that's why bands like Led Zeppelin and The Beatles and Pink Floyd are still talked about; they didn't make these distinctions; you had complex symphonies, if you will (The Song Remains The Same, A Day In The Life, Echoes) alongside simple "Squeeze the lemon, baby" blues and "Love Me Do" skiffle and "Alan's Breakfast" musique concrète, and all that mattered is that one got lost in the music.
* I'm not suggesting you or anyone else IS one-dimensional; I would ask you - and be honest - did you make a CONSCIOUS decision to like what you like, or did it really happen that you liked it, you were drawn to it, and figured out why later? Is there ANYTHING musically you like/listen to that doesn't fit the set pattern?