This is a more reasonable reading:
Banks are different because they create money out of thin air. That has been generally accepted so far, but where is the empirical evidence for banks creating money out of thin air? It's in the paper. That's the contribution of the paper, to show empirically how new money is created.
We don't need evidence (empirical or otherwise) for non-banks not creating money, because that would be proving a negative.
If you want to attack the strong interpretation of the claim, you would have to show how non-banks do create money, which you didn't, because as we already agreed, deposits at non-bank institutions are not considered money.
I implore you to apply the principle of charity (steelmanning) instead of wasting your time on semantic disputes.