Agreed, I would argue that no paper is free of "misinformation" in the sense described above.

I get the point that the official comment is trying to make, but this seems like something that should've been handled internally via email. The paper has been public for some time now (2 months, with substational discussion on reddit and twitter). To clarify, it feels as if SPS drafted their comment only after seeing the high scores on openreview. If the goal is to correct the record and present past work in the correct light - why not email the authors months ago?