Agnolin and Novas's (2011) cheating for unenlagiine monophyly?

Here's a quick example of the fun I find when checking matrices for my analysis.  Agnolin and Novas (2011) took Hu et al.'s (2009) matrix and recoded some paravians, as well as adding three new characters to support unenlagiine monophyly- maxilla elongate, postantral wall extensive, teeth grooved.  They got a result that's fairly unique in placing unenlagiines as avialans instead of dromaeosaurids.  I'm adding the data into my matrix and notice the matrix has five new characters added instead of three, all of which are only present in Buitreraptor and Austroraptor.  Well, except the last one, which is seemingly the third they list (grooved teeth) since its codings would suggest it is tooth-based (though wrongly coded for Garudimimus, ornithomimids and Confuciusornis) and present in Sinornithosaurus (and incorrectly in Compsognathus).  As if two phantom characters weren't bad enough, the authors clearly didn't actually check if taxa had them, instead merely going through the matrix and marking anything with cranial material '00000'.  This includes taxa which can't be coded for maxilla elongation or maxillary postantral wall elongation like Tanycolagreus, Coelurus, Mononykus, Falcarius, Alxasaurus, Protarchaeopteryx and Caenagnathus, and even some taxa with no cranial material like Archaeornithomimus and Anserimimus.  Sure none of those taxa are close to unenlagiines so their coding really doesn't matter here, but it sets such a bad precident.  Someone who didn't notice this could go through the matrix and see Protarchaeopteryx is coded as lacking a posteriorly extensive postantral wall and think the authors must have examined the material since it's certainly not illustrated or stated in the literature, and thus code it that way in their own matrix.  But no, I've seen the specimen and the whole maxillary area is crushed so much that you can't even tell if the hole in it is the antorbital fenestra or just damage, let alone see any internal details of the thing.  I'm not even going to go through their new character codings because I can't trust them one bit.

And by the way, contra Agnolin and Novas, their matrix generates 16210 most parsimonious trees of 1409 steps, not 145 trees of 1440 steps.  I was suspicious about the added unenlagiine characters, both real and phantom, but it turns out that the trees have the same topology when either the two phantom characters or all five new characters are excluded.  So I guess they weren't cheating for unenlagiine monophyly after all.