The degree of misunderstanding here is just very high.
Of course de novo creation of AE can be falsified, or we would not say that Jeanson’s model of AE is in conflict with the evidence. Every model has components that are unfalsifiable.
That is correct and you are not clever here. I directly state this in the book, and @jongarvey also has written about this.
It’s only superfluous if you don’t have regard for Genesis.
I’m not sure we disagree. There are several claims made. Some are directly testable, and some are not. I’m clear that the hypothesis as a whole extends beyond science and can’t be called pseudo science because it doesn’t purport to be science.
Treating the GAE as one unified claim is a mistake because it makes it impossible to clarify these distinctions.
For example, de novo creation writ large is impossible to falsify because it is not well specified. However Jeanson’s model of de novo creation certainly is falsified, which demonstrates directly that it is falsifiable.
The distinction between positive evidence and absence of negative evidence is also important.