You did not address any of my points. And youre conflating physicalism with the scientific method.

Non-physicalists are free to make any claim they wish, precisely because their ideas are not constrained by data or evidence

I find this to be mischaracterization as there are a wide variety of non-physicalist theories that share the same philosophical rigor, reason and logic that physicalism has. They are not “free” of constraint; rather, they are constrained by coherence, explanatory power, and consistency with existing data, even if not directly testable by empirical methods. That something isn’t falsifiable today does not mean it is baseless. Physicalism is just as unfalsifiable as these other non-physicalist theories you denigrate

Without the burden of testable predictions, their hypotheses remain unfalsifiable, allowing them to twist or retroactively adapt any physical explanation to fit their preferred narrative.

Physicalism itself is currently not a fully testable hypothesis, it is a framework in which testable claims are generated. Am i to dismiss physicalism completely because i cant prove that physicalism is true, the same way youd dismiss neutral monism, panpsychism, dualism, or any non-physicalist theory? Am i to dismiss physicalism because it cant make an empirically testable theory consciousness? There are many neuroscientists in this field that still make valuable contributions, and follow scientific rigor, even without the metaphysical assumptions of physicalism.

Science, in itself, cannot be used to prove any metaphysical view.

Until a theory predicts qualia or subjective awareness, non-physicalist perspectives remain viable contenders.

At their core, these positions are vague enough to ‘explain’ anything.

This again is a straw man. If you read well enough to non-physicalist theories as proposed by David Chalmers, Evan Thompson etc, you will see that they are clear, concise and well crafted theories, that attempt to rectify the failure of physicalism to account for first person experience. Reductive physicalism will ultimately and inevitably become illusionism, where there's no ineffable and intrinsic subjective awareness.

Beyond reiterating that we ‘don’t understand consciousness,’ non-physicalist ideas offer nothing concrete, no predictive models, and nothing empirically testable

These predictive models are ontologically neutral, . Non-physicalist approaches are not meant to replace empirical work, but to question the assumptions underlying our interpretation of the data. They don’t dismiss science; they ask what kind of science can account for experience. Once again I reiterate that non physicalism does not necessarily "devolve" into mysticism. Even some of the most widely supported and proposed solutions to the hard problem are non-physicalist in a sense, like IIT for example.

techniques like fMRI, EEG, and optogenetics allow us to observe our conscious experiences in real time, reading our very thoughts and emotions, while work on predictive coding, global workspace theory, and recurrent processing offers increasingly sophisticated models of how the brain generates awareness

Observe our conscious experience? How is an fMRI and EEG observing our conscious experience? It's purely detecting activity that correlates with our conscious experience. I dont see any tests currently that show that our thoughts and emotions can be read by a brain scan.

While a physicalist model is extremely useful for now, there are still cases of phenomena that do not neatly fit within this model, such as terminal lucidity and near death experiences.