Why is this so different as to claim a third entirely new type of humans? We know that both species hybridized, so maybe a sapiens x neanderthal?
This paper is specifically an argument for a "missing link" between archaic H. erectus and modern human morphologies, which pushes the emergence of these features back before Out-Of-Africa. So they avoid those terms because they're semantic distinctions the authors don't fully recognize.
Even if they don't recognize neanderthals, is a well established taxon, and this does not differ a lot of them (in my non expert opinion), so they should show why this is enough different to deserve a second "oriental neanderthal" species. I can imagine easily neanderthals following migrating animals and conquering most of the northern hemisphere just walking from Atlantic to Pacific coasts in several generations.
In politics you don't need that. Just see how some political leaders avoid mentioning "sensitive" words (i.e the name of the opponent, climate change etc) for their target audience.
In a hypothetical world where we could have infinite compute power and a map of the exact location of every atom in a skull, I don't think there would be any issue getting a DNA sequence.
Then we can draw the full family tree and know for sure.
For a 300,000 year old copy of a genome to survive there’d need to be 2^600 copies to begin with.
It'll be hard to recombine this into a clear picture as you won't know which sequences are common and which are individual.
No, it's approximately 1e180. You're off by 160 orders of magnitude.