> The author makes some good points, but does not propose his own criteria for what distinguishes a good theory from a bad theory, which seems like a cop-out to be frank.

That's not the purpose of the article, though. The purpose is to show that the most popular purported solution to the problem (naive falsificationism) is so severely limited as to be untenable, and that's really useful in itself. The title is "Why falsificationism is false", not "What should replace falsificationism".