Because this feels like you are making an appeal to authority in order to reject any criticism, when what I'm cautioning that there's a long history here.

Have you carefully examined the literature and verified the positive results are replicable?

I agree with Sagan's phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". I remember the excitement after the Fleischmann–Pons announcement. I knew physicists at my college who were eagerly trying to replicate it. They failed. So did just about everyone else.

At this point, practical cold fusion is an extraordinary claim.

Yes, I've seen papers since Fleischmann-Pons where "contributors reporting positive results", but upon further examination they ended up being errors, like detecting helium presumably caused by fusion events, when it turned out to be a leak from another experiment in the building.

We know hot fusion experiments report positive results, but it's still a long way from those positive results to a working hot fusion power plant. A Farnsworth–Hirsch fusor reports positive results, but cannot be used for commercial energy production.

A Crookes radiometer uses sunlight to power a device. It is not an economically competitive power source.

If cold fusion is to be a viable alternative to fossil fuels, it needs to be economically competitive to wind + solar + batteries.

No cold fusion experiments have demonstrated that this is possible. Even in this letter, the strongest claim is merely "one at least confirming claims of genuineness by powering a device from its output", without details about who did it, how much it costs, or how much energy it produces.

And the history of "free energy devices" shows scam upon scam upon scam devices, including cleverly hidden power sources, along with its own free energy suppression conspiracy theory.

It's clear that cold fusion at this point requires extraordinary evidence to show that it's not merely a variation of the free energy device contrarians.