Can the finite Gorenstein dimension hypothesis on N be removed in Theorem 5.4(2)?

Determine whether the implication PR(N,M) < ∞ ⇒ PR(M,N) < ∞ in the Ext symmetry result holds without assuming Gdim_R N < ∞, under the remaining hypotheses of Theorem 5.4(2): R is a Cohen–Macaulay local ring with canonical module W_R, PR(W_R,M) < ∞, cob_M < ∞, PR(M,R) < ∞, Q is an MCM syzygy of N, and Ext_R^n(Hom_R(Q,M), R) = 0 for all sufficiently large n.

Background

Theorem 5.4(2) establishes a direction of Ext symmetry assuming, among other conditions, that N has finite Gorenstein dimension. The surrounding discussion notes that in this setup M has finite Gorenstein injective dimension, suggesting alternative approaches via complete injective resolutions.

This question probes whether the Gorenstein dimension requirement on N is essential, which would broaden the applicability of the symmetry result.