I quickly scanned the research paper. My first question was "what's the gold standard?". Of course, it would be outcomes, i.e. portfolio survival of a large cohort of retirees over decades, compared with predicted results from the calculators prior to retirement. Obviously, that would be impossible to study at this time.
The methodology the authors used was to review the inclusion of predictive data inputs in the various calculators. They focus on retiree-specific variables (age, income, assets are categories). Inflation, stock and bond return rates are also considered. Many of the calculators tested did not include variables that have been predictive in previous research and that the authors and a group of FAs considered important.
They then designed a specific marginal scenario and ran it through all the calculators. The results were wildly inconsistent. It is not clear how much of the inconsistency was due to variation in input variables or variation in calculator algorithms.
FireCalc was among the calculators tested, but is not listed in the final table, so it is not possible to review its performance in the study. Omission of data from the results makes me concerned.
The conclusion is that the design of publicly available calculators needs to be improved to avoid leading people astray. This makes sense to me. Retirement calculators are relatively recent innovations and will continue to evolve. In particular, their predictive values need to be validated with post hoc data. While it is not perfect, I do think this was a worthwhile study, if only to remind us not to encourage someone to ER just because "FireCalc says you're good to go".