So, basically you're saying: I have only skimmed the article, similar approaches had issues in the past, and my own method from my forthcoming paper is better.
I mean, no disrespect, but that's the core of your argument, yes?
It certainly comes across as disrespectful.
To my reading the nature of supervision creating the structure seems to be the core of the argument.
His arguments apply generally to a large family of interpretability methods. Skimming suffices to figure out that the linked article is in that family.