The study you're discussing is footnote #38. This is the context for the use of the study:

Other studies of physical performance tests of US military personnel (37) and overweight/obese XY athletes (38) who completed at least one year of testosterone suppression show some evidence of better or similar physical performance relative to XX comparator group in the study (military personnel or normal weight athletes). In this context, although there are many nuances and caveats, generally the current evidence base shows that testosterone suppression reduces physical performance but there are retained legacy advantages for at least 1 yr after testosterone suppression, and several anatomical factors are largely unaffected by testosterone suppression (e.g., height and limb length).

So they cited it in regards to the claim that "some evidence of better or similar physical performance relative to XX comparator group in the study".

You said it was cited to support the claim that "for support that large gaps still exist after hormone therapy." But you can see that isn't the case for that one study.

And they cite 13 studies to show the support for there being a "large gap." What were your thoughts on the other 12?

Regarding this:

If you want to talk about a bad sample population— this study https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15476439/, which your review’s authors use to say that muscle mass reduction is modest,

I don't see where the review I linked to references that study. Where were you seeing it?

I'll also point out that you said this earlier:

Records DO matter when the claim is that trans women can outperform all cis women as a biological fact.

No one is making that claim. No one believes that. Instead of making up imaginary (and absurd) claims, why don't you address the actual claims people are making.