Unfortunately, the disagreements arise from differences in science sociology between physicists and chemists. Charles Beaudette's book "Excess Heat" covers this the best I have thus far read.
But at bottom it is this......while Pons and Fleischmann deserve huge credit for having the guts to pursue the question at all, the fact that they were both electrochemists was of major long-term negative consequence for rapid progress.
Approaching the experiments from the perspective and using the tools of electrochemistry is hugely difficult. I'm a chemist, and I approach electrochemistry with "fear and trembling", because it is very difficult to control all the possible variables. Only a world-class electrochemist has a good shot at making it work, and then only if the phase of the moon is right.
The physicists thought that because the apparatus was simple, that the experiment was therefore "easy". They were wrong (and it is not surprising that early electrochemical attempts by physicists mostly failed). The early successful replications were done by electrochemists.
But by that time, the physicist vs. chemist antipathy had set in cement, with the physicists writing off ALL experimental results as "experimental errors", charlatanry, etc.
The HUGE further advance was the development (by the Japanese) of gas-loaded experiments. This cuts the number of variables WAY down, and pushes the probability of success up. Still not easy, and still not well understood, but much easier than the electrochemical approach.
Even at that, if the thing is producing any substantial amount of energy that should be apparent beyond any arguable margin of error.