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".
I take your point that it could have been more strongly worded. The reason I say it "devliers unexpectedly well" is because the whole concept of using gzip for classification is unintuitive, and even after fixing the flaw it still manages to get decent accuracy (given that it is no more beating state-of-the-art models).
