Whilst the team have not supplied evidence that we are living in such a hologram, what they have supplied is further evidence to support the holographic principle. The hope is that they can reconcile Einstein's theory of general relativity with that of Quantum theory where some of the concepts from the theory of general relativity do not work so well however that would have to be the subject of another article

I don't fully agree with your conclusions. They have studied a class of holographic models and have shown that they are not excluded by data. They are in agreement with data to a large extent.

Holographic cosmology is thus still a good competitor to the most popular lambda-CDM model of the universe history. Note that Lambda-CDM is still more favored by data (one can rank the amount of agreement, if you want).

All of this to say that this is different from stating that we have an evidence to support holographic cosmology. The word evidence has in fact a very specific meaning in science.

In the article (the free version can be downloaded from here), you can find "Bayesian evidence" which has also a specific meaning in statistics. This quantifies the goodness of a fit of a theoretical model to data. This is the 'evidence' we are actually talking about ;)

I hope I clarified! Otherwise please react :)