Indeed. Per the paper, the standard 1:5 ultimate loading is projected to be alternately decreased (relaxed), and increased, (more strict) dependent on the very questions you pose. The potential for lightening the airframe is large. It will take years to develop these standards, and the headaches you mention in fail/destructive testing will not shorten this time frame.
The upside is the great detail and patience involved in the manufacture itself. The first boat hulls were 3cm thick! One hopes the rebound from caution will not be a relaxation of best practice. I think there will be few "gotchas", the demands will not diminish, especially in aviation.
Had I reviewed the paper, I would have insisted on dropping the comparison to plywood. Duramold is a laminating process, not a layup, per se. Lumber is a two phase material (natural) on its own, and the phenolics are not resin, per se, but adhesive.
I note that the problems predominate in the mating/joining of assemblies, not in the subjacent structures; that is encouraging, and embarrassing at the same time? Eventually, the size of the airframe will moot, either through larger ovens, or in abandoning the piece to piece method, (smaller a/c).