Is skepticism warranted? At least they didn't call it Fully Satellite Deploying.
Each Starlink V3 satellite weighs approximately 2 tons. They use ion thrusters for propulsion, so propellant on each satellite is 50-100kg, not half a ton. The current payload bay can hold around 60 V3 satellites, so they'd launch fewer of them (as they did in this launch) instead of putting partially fueled satellites into orbit.
A tower catch and an ocean splashdown require the same amount of propellant. The only difference is when the deorbit burn happens. Yes there will be some boil-off as the ship stays in orbit for longer, but a day in orbit would lose around 0.5% of the propellant. According to the live stream, both the booster & ship were loaded to about 98.5% of capacity. And filling the tanks completely would give them more payload capability, not less.
If you need to see a satellite deploy followed by a tower catch to be convinced of their payload numbers, then you're asking for evidence that doesn't exist yet. But I'd be happy to bet on that. How about this: If before December 31st, 2027, SpaceX deploys a payload greater than 50 tons from Starship while recovering both the booster & ship (I assume via tower catch. Fishing out of the water doesn't count.) you pay me $1,000. If that doesn't happen, I pay you $1,000. If you like, we could both choose a charity and the loser donates to the charity of the winner's choosing.
full duration full throttle burns of Raptor3 are common and I'm pretty sure a part of qc for each new engine anyway. Payload weight doesn't strain the engines, once they're throttled at 100% then they're throttled at 100% no matter how much or how little payload there is.
Their engineers understand mass, and how to distinguish it.