The continual hyperbole from both sides quickly becomes tedious. Many books on the authorship topic usually concentrate on one (seen by the author) "essential" criterion as though it is the definitive code-breaker. This book focuses on one topic. It isn't a "devastating rebuttal". It doesn't "cast very considerable doubt" about anything. In essence it contains some deep research about one issue. Nor does it "demonstrate very conclusively" anything other than Shakespeare's trail in some areas differed from others. In this respect it adds some information to a complex corpus of studies that already exists.
Shakespeare,for a number of perfectly simple explainable reasons, had some different patterns within the composite that was his life. One of these was his relationship with and within his Acting Company. Another was his weak association with the collaborative formula adopted by many playwrights of his time. His domestic arrangements were out of the normal. So it goes on with other features about him. -not about some other playwright(s). All of these factors have to be considered - including those in this book - but not in isolation. What is presented by the author is another research piece in a large jigsaw.
What is the "traditional story" by the way? Presumably that Shakespeare constructed most of the plays attributed to him, was associated with the King's Men, lived in Stratford and died there. How does this book alter that?