There are no technical details in the paper, so no one can judge whether they made mistakes, or what mistakes they might have made. They revealed only one detail about the Pd-D work. Suggested or half-revealed it. They suggested it did not load enough to produce the effect. That might be a mistake. Perhaps they did not take the steps needed to improve loading. Or, perhaps, it was bad luck. They happened to have a sample -- or many samples -- that will not load. There is no indication how many samples they tested, or what the loading, expansion, ocv and other critical parameters were, so it is impossible to guess what happened. They may have come close, or it could be there was no chance they would see heat.
We (or they!) must know (we WANT to know) why they failed to get excess heat. The failure to get excess heat means there was a mistake somewhere. Most likely the sample, as that is the key. You need to have a active sample. Did they do 420 experiments on the same sample? If one did not work, then why would any of the others.
Is it normal to publish a scientific version of the paper?
OK, so my one point must changed to "We don't know why the UBCVancouver lab failed to get excess heat, but something didn't work."
which is not as strong as "They made a mistake somewhere" and leaves an opening for the skeptics to say, "yeah it didn't work because it is impossible". At which point, I will shrug my shoulders, "What can I say?" and walk away.