I read it back and it says the same thing, here I took screenshots of the parts of the analysis. C. medica appeared in the graph in the same place as C. ichangensis, they are clearly different and were raised in large multidisciplinary and international works. There in the text it says that possibly discarding some results could be the reason that C. ichangensis and C. medica will be placed together and that Yuzu is still closer to C. ichangensis and C. reticulata, confirming what has already been stated in others occasions. Furthermore, if multiple research projects reach the same point and one proposes something different, science is consolidated by evidence and because its results are repeatable, not by exceptions. I had already seen other research articles that, if they cared, raised c. medica as homologous to C. ichangensis, which those who do comparative morphology clearly disagree on everything. There was also a similar genetic phenomenon when research into the origin of citrus fruits was done. The results showed that C. medica was related to Australian citrus trees, but only in the chloroplast genome. This was considered an error and it was clarified that it made a phylogenetic tree that was not very parsimonious, meaning that it posed more problems than solutions.
if you compare different papers you will find that the species and types sometimes fall into different clusters. Depending on which genetic markers were analysed. This is not surprising. The study only provides an answer to the specific question, everything else remains interpretation.
I think it is difficult to try to force a clear answer here, there are studies that have delivered results. They were not wrong, the overall picture emerges until the next study comes along, which can change or confirm everything.
If some people here reinterpret research results based on taste and personal impressions, turn lemon into citron, turn the results upside down to suit their own personal preferences (I'm not talking about you, Lauta!), then this is not helpful, it creates confusion and is pure speculation and certainly not scientific.
I don't think the question of yuzu ancestry is clear one way or the other, but the results show that there are several possible interpretations, depending on the genetic markers analysed.
The two links Ilya posted point in the direction of non-parenthood. This cannot simply be ignored or overruled by the majority. The categorisation of the results is an interpretation, we must be aware of that. And our interpretation is amateur interpretation