I think to a lot of the technically minded, but non nuclear physicists here, it initially sounded like less (paid for/electricity) energy was used than was put out. That's extremely exciting, and the actual news is still fantastic, it's just that 'actually, we needed to pay for over 100x more energy than we counted as the "input" energy [and it's possible to do 10x but not 100x better than that]' is quite a massive caveat on a 3:2 or whatever yield.

I'm not saying they've claimed anything wrong or deliberately misleading, it's just a misunderstanding/misalignment and possibly made worse by the PR teams in the middle.

In other words, I don't think it's an angry 'well actually' type correction so much as it is disappointment - it initially sounded even greater.