Right, let's add drtail to my cryptic post.
The box or 'Prandtl' wing aims to reduce induced drag by fencing the wingtips and preventing vortex roll-over, while simultaneously strengthening the wing structure in a giant torsion box. On paper you'd expect double digit efficiency improvements, but in most multi-disciplinary studies it falls short of the conventional reference aircraft. Why?
Evolutionary or iterative methods have to fix something, and often limit max takeoff weight, or wing loading, or span. This works well with less unusual designs, but the optimal condition for a box wing aircraft is so far removed from a conventional one that you end up at a poorly compromised local optimum: For example, fix wingspan and wing loading and the box wing gets so slender that it's aeroelastically hazardous and needs high rigidity, adding weight and reducing performance. You are cursed by the restraints of the existing conventional optimum (e.g an Airbus A320neo).
But allow the mission description to vary and the box can hold some promise: For example, constrain span at the 36m of a medium haul aircraft but allow the range and passenger complement to expand to a long haul mission and suddenly it starts to make sense.
The box has plenty of other compromises, but the tyranny of the local optimum means that it and other platforms require mission change and novel thinking to be worthwhile: Unlikely in a passenger aircraft.