See above. TFA claims that IIT is testable, but does not say anthing at all about a test that has been published, a test that has been done, a test that some research group is doing, a test that is being considered, a test that could be done given some scientific or technological development. Nothing.

Burden of proof generally isn't on the skeptic.

I think there is a difference between a proof and the refutation of an argument. I expect proofs from scientific theories, and if a theory of consciousness would posit itself as scientific, I would be in perfect agreement with you that proofs or testable predictions should be provided. But I think here we are well into philosophy grounds, where neither proofs nor predictions are required. If that is the case, a philosophical claim needs to be actively rejected. I will admit that I still have to make my mind whether IIT is purely philosophy, purely scientific, or neither. Currently I don't think it's a theory of consciousness, rather just a model to "quantify" consciousness, without explaining its origin.

The author of TFA disagrees with you: "Most importantly, though, IIT is a scientific theory, unlike panpsychism."

I mean, I just eat lunch while I read things, not sure why you think I've signed up to put a professional level effort into rolling my eyes at these guys.