I think it's certainly possible to imply something without saying it. But I think it's important that we don't assume that anybody who doesn't say X is implying X just because they talk about Y which other people use to imply X. Otherwise it becomes impossible to talk about Y.

If you think in this specific case that the authors are implying X by saying Y, then you need to explain why you think that.

Didn’t even imply it. The criticism is pretty clear: even though this was obviously a problem it wasn’t addressed for decades.

That’s the point. There is no talk about the initial design.