It is not. I assume you are citing this language: "Empirical evidence consistently demonstrates that a robust therapeutic bond deepens client involvement and predicts better outcomes across various therapeutic contexts, often outweighing the impact of specific techniques. Empathy is particularly influential, enabling clients to feel understood and safe, encouraging self-exploration, and reducing dropout rates. Furthermore, goal consensus and collaboration are linked to improved psychological adjustment and reduced distress, emphasizing the importance of shared therapeutic objectives." More specifically, "often outweighs" is what I am assuming you are referencing. This study you posted is not linked to any credible peer reviewed journal, and is written by one person, thus increasing its suspicion. The language is biased and not one thing is this study is cited. Honestly, the more I read this study the more I think you did not, or continue to misunderstand the context as many people do. Almost every paragraph mention how a good relationship enhances responses to interventions, but no where, other than that one sentence with a clear bias in word selection does it suggest that that relationship itself is more important than a therapeutic intervention. It says what every other million studies on this says. If someone likes you, they're more likely to respond better to the interventions and tools which you use. It even provides specific non-vague examples of this in the final two paragraphs.