Too bad the author pointed as a weakness one of the facts only our theory can explain - the cuts from inside.
The hikers cut the tent from inside to get from under the tree. This is the only scenario that can explain why the opening of the tent was not used as exit.
This is how you get out from under a fallen tree - you cut your way out. Also a tree flattens the tent, does not tear it down.
Is it conclusively proven that the cuts were made from the inside?
If so, the cuts might have been made by attackers who wanted to render the tent useless if the victims somehow survived and tried to return to the tent.
But above all: Since the tent is not available, we cannot say for sure.
What we can say for sure, is that there never was any scientifically rigorous examination of the tent. So, it can hardly be considered proven that the cuts were made from the inside. The seamstress who said so, could have been under pressure to come up with a desired conclusion. The point is that neither I nor anyone else can be sure since the telt is no longer available for a proper examination. But in my opinion, we should not take the cutting from inside assumption to be the only possibility.