That isn't the structure of the argument at all. If you don't understand the terms, how did you manage to conclude it was a strawman?
They took an prediction of existing theory that violates a weaker form of locality (i.e. demonstrated stronger non-locality), and realized it experimentally. They also didn't invent bilocality in any case.
They took an prediction of existing theory that violates a weaker form of locality (i.e. demonstrated stronger non-locality), and realized it experimentally. They also didn't invent bilocality in any case.