Pervo on the "We"-passage in Acts

Richard Pervo's fresh commentary on Acts (Hermemeia) is delightful to read partly due to his witty writing style as well as his insight. We-passages in Acts is probably the most discussed issue in the study of Acts. How does Pervo see this long time-trodden problem?

"We" is most often a sign of late composition and is rather better attested in fiction than in works of unquestioned accuracy (394).

One would come closer to an accurate description by stating that "we" slips out of the account whenever something important is about to happen (395).

In conclusion: narrative explanations illuminate the use of "we" in Acts but do not fully elucidate it. "We is not a single character and therefore unlikely to represent the author. . . The use of "we" does not identify the author of Acts. It does serve to enhance the credibility of the narrative and to associate the narrator with the person of Paul. It is a bid to be recognized as an exponent of authentic Paulinism and to authenticate the Paulinism of Acts. "We" is to Acts as the letter form is to the Deutero-Pauline epistles (396).

Well, the last sentence is interesting, but, in my judgment, not a supported claim. It cannot explain, for example, the abrupt appearance and disappearance of the "we" and first person plural verbs. How can an author manipulate the credibility of his work while leaving behind such a clumsy-looking narrative skill?