My first impression is that the similarities were not enough to claim that independent derivation of similar techniques would not explain the results better than assuming a heretofore unknown migration pattern and that has no other evidence for it having occurred.
I would assume analogy before homology without any other evidence for homology.
There is a major shift about to take place in the whole argument. Some papers are in the works that I think will show that Clovis was indeed first--but not as now envisioned.
Ooh, I love surprises.
And it would particularly tickle me if the reinterpretation of the Clovis people was based on a reinterpretation of the Clovis site.