I'm not quite sure how to place your comment, maybe because the term credibility revolution is new to me. Yes, RCTs are used to test and provide evidence, and the null results can be very informative. But I think the external validity point made in the article is absolutely fair. Note that I work in RCTs so I'm definitely not opposed to the approach, but I think there are still a lot of improvements to be made on this - in the field people really do generalize findings quite aggressively. This is "practical" because you need to make decisions when setting up new projects and RCTs are incredibly laborious, expensive and take a lot of time to complete. I'm also surprised about your remark about deworming because it is generally touted as one of the big wins in the field of RCTs, by the RCTs people - Michael Kremer frequently mentions it and so do Esther Duflo and Abhijit Banerjee in their courses on EdX. The concerns that you refer to don't tend to be mentioned (I think they should be!).
Totally agree that Esther Duflo is fantastic and that the contributions of these people go beyond just RCTs, e.g. Esther Duflo's work on the returns of education in Indonesia.
Totally agree that Esther Duflo is fantastic and that the contributions of these people go beyond just RCTs, e.g. Esther Duflo's work on the returns of education in Indonesia.