Once it’s established that “ancient” soft tissue is common, one of the possible explanations is that the tissue is not ancient.
Seems to me this is a more plausible explanation than the one that claims soft tissue can last ten to the sixth power longer than previously thought.
The latter explanation looks suspiciously like a desperate attempt to escape uncomfortable truth.
Then the next logical step would be to examine other lines of evidence that would either support or contradict that explanation. If the tissue is relatively recent it should still contain measurable quantities of C14. Did they test for that?
Indeed, one possible explanation is that such "soft tissues" did not originate in the dinosaur where it was found, but is remains some other critter that later on lived & then died in "dino meat".
But for now, at least, all such speculations must remain in the realm of hypotheses which have not been confirmed.
In fact, we can only speculate if "soft tissues" will be commonly found in the future, and if so, what they might tell us about the ancient past...
That claim doesn't come in a vacuum, though. I see the choice as being between
1. the multiple overlapping and concurring methods of dating fossils are correct, and microscopic fragments of soft tissue can remain in them even after millions of years due to some factors we don't fully understand yet; or
2. all those dating methods are flawed, and not only that but they're each flawed in exactly the way necessary to make it agree with the other ones, so it's possible that dinosaurs were around a few thousand years ago, even though we haven't found any mummified dinosaurs like the mummified mammoths we have, or dinosaur bones that haven't been turned to rock unlike the sabertooth tiger bones we have, or any of the other kinds of fossils we have from animals that lived only a few thousand years ago.
I know which scenario I find more plausible.