Yes - it's mentioned, but doesn't the framing below make it sound like they're still advocating for this paper?
> In essence, it's advisable to take the paper’s reported figures with a grain of salt, particularly as they cannot be precisely reproduced as described. Nonetheless, this approach continues to deliver unexpectedly well.
A "grain of salt" is different from "critical evaluation flaw," and if the reproduction's results are true, then the method doesn't after all "deliver unexpectedly well".
> In essence, it's advisable to take the paper’s reported figures with a grain of salt, particularly as they cannot be precisely reproduced as described. Nonetheless, this approach continues to deliver unexpectedly well.
A "grain of salt" is different from "critical evaluation flaw," and if the reproduction's results are true, then the method doesn't after all "deliver unexpectedly well".