The paper, as it stands, would still not be able to support its conclusions. What all of this comes down to is not that open science is good (it is tho!) or documentation helps (it might!). It's that it all comes down to design and inference. It's the science that ultimately matters.

To anyone, in good faith, coming here to say "but it was just proof of concept," I suggest to please go read high quality proof of concept studies in clinical trials and see whether or not the treatment and inference are carefully matched. Read about the proof of concept design before buying that.