ok, this makes lot of sense, I guess I somewhat misparsed the text.

EDIT: I wonder if it counts as misreading or misunderstanding, to not notice that a word is an auto-antonym?

Think about falsifiable as "veriviable"/"provable". Falsifibility in Patricks sentence stems from scientific theory. From the POV of critical rationalism a thing is never really provable because there always remains a bit of doubt whether the observed result of an action really is a result of that action and not secretly influenced by some unknown variable. But a proper theory is falsifiable, i.e. it can be proven that action did not lead to a specific result.

So think of Patricks statement as "always give concrete, measurable goals".

How is that an antonym? The point to "falsifiable" is the statement is made about an event is capable of being false, not that it is false.

Use of the word outside of scientific contexts often confuses people, because the common verb "falsify" has a completely different meaning.

Those two definitions aren't opposites of each other. They're two different things.