Well the DI couldn't go on ignoring the problems with Meyer's paper forever but it looks pretty bad for them.
In the context of using CSI as an argument against evolution for instance criticism 'A' even as presented by the DI author is clearly correct. Since by Dembski's defintion of CSI evolution has to be eliminated as a possible explanation before an event can be identified as CSI any attempt to use CSI as an argument against evolution begs the question. Meyer attemtps precisely this sort of argument and thereefore he is logically wrong - probably becaue he has been mislead by Dembski's assertions that "evolution cannot produce CSI" and failed to take into account what Dembski's CSI really is. I suppose it is Dembski's fault for making such a misleading assertion in the first place.
(This is also relevant to the assertion that Meyer has shown that there is CSI in biology - if he so badly misunderstands what CSI is there is no way he could have shown that it is present. He doesn't even know HOW).