Completely agree with your point. It is hard to read this 'rebuttal' as anything but a deliberate attempt to 'sink' this paper at a time when the authors are responding to the reviewers. Now, they also have to respond to a public comment that says that they deliberately over-claimed and rehashed previous ideas. This kind of grievance should've been handled via email.

While it is easy to think that an author is being malicious. Often the honest truth is just that there are *a lot* of papers out there and one might often miss a reference here and there. When these references are pointed out, they can be easily incorporated and more carefully contextualized.

The public comment even went further and replied to each reviewer. They are essentially saying please reject this paper! This level of interference is insane to me. This said, academic 'brand' battles never cease to surprise me.