It doesn't really disprove anything. The problem with this type of analysis is that it's based on engines which are many levels above human play.
While watching the commentary, you will often see comments from super GMs like "engine suggest move XY, but it's not a move a human player would find/consider". The move may be optimal, but only if you're at this Stockfish 3600 ELO level because you need to precisely execute a series of 3600 ELO moves to exploit it. A suboptimal move for 3600 ELO player may be the optimal move for a 2800 ELO player, but Stockfish won't tell you.
I'm not saying this analysis isn't interesting, but we shouldn't overinterpret it.
To add to this, part of what sets engines apart from humans is their understanding of time. The engine always knows whether it has time to complete an attack before the opponent can defend or counterattack - in other words, which player is truly attacking.
If you make a calculation mistake, suddenly your attack falters, and you may have sacrificed material and/or positional integrity that puts you critically behind or makes you vulnerable to counterattack.
This is part of how you get the narrative (in multiple games) that Ding got ahead but lost his nerve. The engine was saying he had time to attack, but he didn't have the certainty an engine does. He didn't immediately press that attack, and his opportunity disappeared.
While watching the commentary, you will often see comments from super GMs like "engine suggest move XY, but it's not a move a human player would find/consider". The move may be optimal, but only if you're at this Stockfish 3600 ELO level because you need to precisely execute a series of 3600 ELO moves to exploit it. A suboptimal move for 3600 ELO player may be the optimal move for a 2800 ELO player, but Stockfish won't tell you.
I'm not saying this analysis isn't interesting, but we shouldn't overinterpret it.