I find this research impressive and convincing (though my opinions don't carry much weight as I know little either of molecular genetics nor North American Ice Age archaeology). Yet I have a feeling that archaeologists are unlikely to engage much with the model proposed in the paper. It's a typical example of why results from genetics are often hard for archaeologists to use.

The paper operates on a time scale of tens of thousands of years and in an area that is almost entirely inaccessible to archaeology because it is currently on the sea floor. Archaeologists prefer to work with individual centuries in areas where there are a lot of sites. We hug trees, trying to grok the details of their treeness, while the paper's authors swoop over the forest canopy in a jet plane. Furthermore, while the initial peopling of the Americas is of great interest to all human population geneticists, it concerns only a tiny minority of American archaeologists. Most of them work with far later periods when the two Americas already teemed with people. How and when the ancestors of those people originally came there are not questions on the agenda.

None of this of course detracts from the general value of the research in its own terms. But the inundation of Beringia means that the initial arrival of people in America is not an issue that is open to archaeological inquiry.

(Finally, let me pick two nits. "Recalibrated" radiocarbon dates is not an accepted term: such dates are either uncalibrated or calibrated. And figs 1-3 has the time axis reversed, which is confusing.)