Did they intentionally leave out stuff to attract investors and the newspaper just took whatever they said at face value?

Why do they make it look as if ACs do not reduce humidity?

They explain the process:

1. Dry air
2. part of the dry air is re-humidified
3. Mix both dry and wet air again
4. Profit

The article avoids numbers as much as possible. They don’t even name a projected cooling power and instead weasel around with this:

similar to the air conditioners most commonly used today in commercial buildings.

3x more efficient if laughable, given that normal ACs are already very good at moving heat, with a COP of something like 4. You can not simply push that to 12, where the theoretical limit is a temperature difference of only 20 K. Instead of using the heat pump directly to move the heat, they use it to heat up the desiccant. There is no way that this gets even close to a COP of 4.

Also, is this simply absorption refrigeration or am I stupid? They have COPs of <2. This source says they need about 4x as much energy. So if they run the heat pump perfectly and do not have any additional loses, maybe they reach a COP of 2.