Philosophy and psychology related to the hypothesis of extended cognition
It's simply saying that she is convincing in her meta-argumentative stance, criticizing the whole EC vs the rest debate. The only point the author retain is the criticism of the parity principle, which Spaulding seems to counter with a bound of cognition à la Rupert. The tone is excessively charitable towards Spaulding, and the author concludes saying without any justification that she (the author) has not been convinced and will stick to her EC allegeance.
Thanks for filling this in for me, Louis.Ken