It seems to me the authors of the original paper are confused about, or are confusing the meaning of "falsifiability" as it's usually meant in philosophy of sci

It seems to me the authors of the original paper are confused about, or are confusing the meaning of "falsifiability" as it's usually meant in philosophy of science. It was an interesting paper, if not entirely original, but I wouldn't say it's about falsifiability. It's about power. There's some overlapping issues, sure, but they're not the same concepts.