Your original question asked "Does [some new study or other] prove [some statement about the world]?"
Nope. I don't need to read any further. It doesn't.
Firstly, proof is a concept from mathematics and from baking. Not from science.
Secondly, it takes more than one single paper to change a position of consilience. The new hypothesis needs to be examined by other people, tested, and weighed up. It may take some time.
So, if you are going to to ask the question, let's move away from that wording, so you don't get empty answers devoid of facts related to this case.
The tricky part, and one we have struggled with before, when we have this situation:
First, we have a general question, like "Do photos of ghosts exist?" and a general answer "No! There is no good evidence for that. All the photos found so far have been fake, photos of natural phenomena misunderstood, or so poor quality as to be useless. For us to believe in ghosts we would need extraordinary evidence, and there isn't extraordinary evidence."
Then, we get a specific question: "Is this a photo of a ghost?"
It kind of makes sense to mark it as a duplicate. We already have the answer.
But that isn't fair, because this photo is new evidence, and it might be good evidence. So, it does kind of make sense to leave it stand for a new answer...
... which will probably look exactly like the generic answer: "No, this photo is fake/a photos of natural phenomena misunderstood/so poor quality as to be useless. For us to believe in ghosts we would need extraordinary evidence, and this isn't extraordinary evidence." But it might still be valuable to have a specific answer to the specific claim.
I suspect your question will fit in a similar position. We may need to work on the wording to ensure people understand that we are looking for an examination of this particular evidence, and not the general question which has been resolved already.