[a_shovel]

I think you're misunderstanding the article. It's analyzing the claims Reed made, specifically the ones she made in her affidavit, and whether they had been corroborated by the NYT or elsewhere. It's not analyzing the claims made in the NYT article by Ms. Hamon or by Reed. Reed doesn't mention any kind of unexplained increase in this particular claim, so the response is adequate.

Besides, the claims listed in the article are just the ones where some amount of truth has been found. If you scroll to the bottom, it has a link to the spreadsheet where you can see the author's tally of Reed's claims, including the claims where the author found no corroboration and ones where the author considers the claim to have been refuted by the available evidence (evidence which includes the third link in my previous comment, which I do recommend you read).