We can agree, I hope, that conclusions can be varied. For example, one might conclude that the evidence was too uncertain to conclude anything. Do you call that a conclusion, or not? It is semantics and not worth arguing about.
Of course that is a conclusion! What else would it be? It is not "semantics" at all.
A person who thinks that the evidence is too uncertain to reach a technical judgement has reached a definite conclusion. That conclusion being: Not enough information. We cannot judge yet. That is as definite as "surely yes" or "definitely no."
"Not enough information" is a clear-cut conclusion. It must be supported by evidence just as much as any other conclusion, or it should be ignored. If there is, in fact, enough information, then this conclusion is wrong.
Indeed, it is flat-out wrong. Asserting that we cannot tell whether cold fusion is real or not is like saying no one knew for sure whether nuclear fission was real in 1942, because it was mighty difficult to make sub 1-watt reactor, there was only one reactor in the world, and there were no practical applications such as bombs.