Yes, in particular the points you cite have been widely discussed since the late 70s. The 'proofs' in question are not absolute mathematical proofs but strong hints around which cases have been made including a lot of elements. The cases are not that clearly cut,and there is not a lot of positive evidence for one thesis or the other but the phrasing here is good approximation.
The research appears serious, but at first sight it doesn't seem to disprove any of the dominant thesis around Vergina.
The question "who is in tomb II?" is still open. Though recent research has provided evidence against the occupant being Philip II (and being rather Philip III) there is still a good deal of evidence "for" Philip II. The case (for Philip II) made at the (very impressive) exhibition at the Vergina museum is well explained.
The case for Cleopatra is even more tenuous but also very well explained.
The research appears serious, but at first sight it doesn't seem to disprove any of the dominant thesis around Vergina.
The question "who is in tomb II?" is still open. Though recent research has provided evidence against the occupant being Philip II (and being rather Philip III) there is still a good deal of evidence "for" Philip II. The case (for Philip II) made at the (very impressive) exhibition at the Vergina museum is well explained.
The case for Cleopatra is even more tenuous but also very well explained.