The point of this research doesn't seem to be to generate a nice sounding digital instrument, but to give violin makers a rough idea of what the instrument will sound like for different shapes / materials. This is useful for comparing designs, even if you don't simulate a human performance with complete fidelity.
So I don't know if your criticism makes much sense.
Either way, the demo doesn't sound like a violin yet. It's really cool that they got it from just a CT scan, and I get the usefulness if they're able to fill in the gaps.
Fair point, my (and many people's) point of view is very virtual instrument centric. I'd still say that better impulses would improve the tool for the potential luthier application.
How useful is it though if it doesn't resemble what it will sound like when actually played? IIUC the difference between this and a human playing is to some degree subtle. But the audio difference between different violin designs will also be subtle.