hmm. Using a term from formal science literature to loosely argue or back questionable arguments withe the ruse of scientific basis is a common issue. I pointed out that this article does not use the formal definition of the term, which you point out is itself an issue. Put that way i agree.

I think the article could have used a different term, or made a more clear declaration of what they specifically meant with the term to resolve this issue. Though i don't think it was done intentionally to deceive since the article makes no mention of the formal literature or theory of "cognitive load" to back its arguments.