If this was a casual blog post or something, I think you'd have a fair counterpoint that would muddy the waters sufficiently.
But this is published in a renowned scientific journal. Every word choice should be carefully chosen, and it's fair game to critique it as such.
In a parallel universe words only ever have a single meaning and nobody ever misinterprets anything, but not in this one.
> and it's fair game to critique it as such
Ambiguity was not the given critique, so this statement is both true on its own and also in context a giant nonsequitur.
It's not their fault that when assessing members of the response set for "when" you neglect to consider "never".