"We got the introduction completely wrong" seems to've been one of the takeaways according to the article.

I suspect the underlying problem was the limitations being obvious to the research team and them being excited that it was -less- limited than previous attempts in the same direction and not realising how people who didn't find the limitations it still had obvious would react.

All very predictable in hindsight but because they didn't see it as a 'real' launch I don't think people with enough of an outside view were involved, and ... I think we've all been there with the "but that's obvious" problem, so (a) you're right (b) I'm still kinda sympathetic.