I'd put that very differently. Some are interested in what they have, others in what they do, the rest in how they do. And, I don't think that people on HN are predominantly interested in things. I think they're above all interested in acts.
The division is long established in the scientific lit - just highlighting it exists.
I find it unlikely anyone was expecting to find some revelatory details in the letters between Marie Antoinette and her alleged lover. They just wanted to know more about her intimate affairs.
The article on Ars is pretty shit at conveying that - you have to get to the 7th paragraph for any technical details to come up - but that’s an(other) indictment of Ms. Oulette, not the research team.
>So when Fabien Pottier and several colleagues at the Museum of Natural History's Research Center for the Conservation of Collections (CRCC) took on the task of uncovering the censored portions of letters between Marie Antoinette and von Fersen, they naturally turned to similar techniques.
That doesn't sound like developing the method was their primary goal.
Scientific methods relating to historical and archeological discovery are immensely important, this article in particular highlights something that may indicate many other hisorical letters/documents may contain previously missed information that while likely mostly mundane minutae, a shining example could alter how we understand history and the interplay of historical figures.
That said it seems this just referencing a less common use of a specific technology to solve a problem which I suppose is appropriate