As someone completely unfamiliar with the field I can only go on indicators of intent, but the two facts that the re-analysis was: (a) prompted by an external p

As someone completely unfamiliar with the field I can only go on indicators of intent, but the two facts that the re-analysis was: (a) prompted by an external person finding flaws with their research, and (b) performed by the original researchers themselves rather than by an independent party, both seem like red-flags to me for the possibility that the re-analysis could be an attempt to save face, rather than an honest re-evaluation. There's no way to say either way for sure, but an independent analysis without bias would be a little better. This excerpt from the article also supports the desperately-saving-face narrative: "The investigators spent a year working on the re-analysis ... “You cannot imagine what it has been like,” Dr. Martínez-González said, adding that he and his team worked through vacations and weekends — and swallowed considerable professional embarrassment."