The study itself is pretty explicit that it is just one encouraging case study which the authors believe merits follow-up research, rather than something conclusive. Matt Y's reporting isn't as forthcoming about this as it probably should've been, but he does also say the same thing at the end. He sort of buried the lede but didn't lie or anything.
I'm not accusing Matt Y. of lying. I like him and subscribe to his Substack. I'm just saying that the article illustrates the shortcoming of his approach to public policy. His data-driven approach to public policy is based on an overly optimistic view of reliability of the data.
