Where is the hyperbole? The fact that island today is or may be "deserted," does nothing to diminish the fact of the navigational achievements presumably engendered by the tools and techniques discussed in the article.

In order to establish something to be inhabited, you need some kind of evidence, not just presumption. In addition, there are many islands that are not large enough to sustain any kind of lived-in habitation -or may be barren or lack fresh water. Stopping over to repair a canoe is not inhabiting some place. At the minimum an inhabited island would need enough resources to sustain a family, more likely an extended family and perhaps a settlement to be long-term inhabitable.

The presumption applies to the navigational techniques, not the inhabitance. As your own pull quote states, the inhabitance is a thing that archaeologists have determined, not presumed.

Also: where is the hyperbole?

That is a claim not a fact. The hyperbola is "even the remotest island in the Pacific was inhabited". Surely many were, but they exaggerate and imply by virtue of relative position that even the remotest island was inhabited --that is very unlikely. What is the remotest island in the Pacific if I'm on an Aleutian island, vs Micronesia, vs Indonesia, etc...

Agreed. Further, in a previous era when all humans lived tribally, everyone was accustomed to the tribal life and an island may have provided advantages in the form of isolation. However, an island has limited resources and may not be able to support a civilization much beyond a tribal level. In the modern era, the willingness to live tribally is not what it was.

Point being: What was once acceptable may not be now, thus inhabited then and deserted now. This also doesn't even touch on resource depletion (see book "Collapse" [0]) or the impact of colonialism on indigenous people.

[0] Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed: Revised Edition https://www.amazon.com/Collapse-Societies-Choose-Succeed-Rev...