I think the maps are meant to be treated as: "If the world were flat, then the map would look something like this."

The headline says "Representation of
the True World Map", and prominently features a map with figures next to it that would represent the daily motion of the sub-solar point at different times of year on
that map.
Other flat-earth representations we've seen, like the bi-polar and the dual-earth versions, look considerably different, so this couldn't be considered a representation of those, nor would the path of the Sun be that set of circles on either of them.
If what you say is correct and they were being honest, wouldn't it say "One Possible Representation of a True World Map" or something like that? That loses some impact, though, and makes them sound unsure of what the world looks like. After all, if they don't know what the world looks like, why believe they know what its shape is?