It may change, but CURRENTLY, it does not think there's sufficient evidence to rule in favour of provisional measures, i.e., it does not think there is a genocide.
Resorting to legalese isn't changing this fact.
False, it ruled that provisional measures against Israel were warranted and adopted four provisional measures against Israel by 15-2 vote, and two by 16-1 vote (the latter including the Israeli judge ad hoc in the majority.)
What was asked from Israel is to continue its commitment to the genocide charter, update the court on aid Israel is letting into Gaza, and prosecute in Israeli courts people that call for genocide.
They didn't ask for anything about anyone arresting Israeli officials (who mostly would be in Israel, not Gaza), they asked for non-interference with international agencies entering Gaza for fact-finding and evidence preservation. Specifically, they asked:
The State of Israel shall take effective measures to prevent the destruction and ensure the preservation of evidence related to allegations of acts within the scope of Article II of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide; to that end, the State of Israel shall not act to deny or otherwise restrict access by fact-finding missions, international mandates and other bodies to Gaza to assist in ensuring the preservation and retention of said evidence.
But on that topic the court ordered:
The State of Israel shall take effective measures to prevent the destruction and ensure the preservation of evidence related to allegations of acts within the scope of Article II and Article III of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide against members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip;