Myself I am quite puzzled.
After all, all three of these routes have been presented as "last great problems" that have been tried by many others before...
So, my suspect is that on one side yes, in the start JP was probably being "generous" in his evaluations (expecially, a common point in these ascents is that he presented the route as much more risky than repeaters thought or tested).
But, on the other side, I have this other suspect that for some reasons the repeaters chose to be overly harsh and bold in the downgrade, evaluating more than just the route.
DMC blog was expecially clever in this : with its long praise to the FA, it really sounds like "very well done kid, but you still have a lot of homework to do"