An accurate understanding of reality is certainly not the only factor in achieving fitness & status, and I'd even believe at a certain point increased resolution when it comes to understanding reality has diminishing returns (and am aware of some research that supports this).
But absent understanding of reality, there is no effective sustainable fitness or status (or effective allocation of resources).
I don't know what you'd call that understanding but truth works for me.
You may want to look into the etymology of "trust." That's one of several indicators that you're actually relying on the concept of truth in your comments here -- there's really no getting around that if you're going to make assertions about how things are. Even if they border on addled word salad.
Want to argue that assertions of truth can be tied up with power? OK. I get that and have argued it myself. Want to argue that grasping the truth is complicated and can be very difficult? Sure. Want to argue for an epistemology where "truth" is nothing more than an imaginary construct? So are 0 and i and yet at the same time they're clearly reflections of graspable aspects of reality.
Want to argue that truth is nothing more than a power grab? This can itself be a move related to power, and probably is. Furthermore, it's just not sustainable. To make an assertion is to make a statement of truth.
In a post-truth world, any allocation of resources is acceptable.
Also, is research not ultimately meant to be truth seeking? Should we not explore to understand world, for example the laws of physics? Or is that truth not useful and a waste of valuable resources. In that case - you should probably get off the internet since it apparently isn't very valuable to you.
There’s a giant gap between what this article is talking about, which is Truth, than the true statements from discrete mathematics. Discrete math is rooted in necessary conditions of experience; this article’s Truth is rooted in power.