If a system can be shown to have evolved by a series of step changes (which is what the above demonstrates) then by definition it is NOT IC
Those who are attempting to push IC have been careful not to define IC as "cannot evolve by a series of step changes". So your statement is wrong.
What they have done is assume that IC systems, defined in various other ways, cannot evolve. So if they demonstrate that a system is IC by whatever definition they use, that leads to the conclusion that is cannot have evolved.
Hall's experiments demonstrated that a system that is IC by Behe's original definition can evolve.
That's one reason Behe changed his definition to one for which it is impossible to figure out if a sytem is IC.
Re: Sticking to the topic/s, and avoiding deceptions.
It is because in the random world of neo-Darwinism, a single mutation would have to be preserved by natural selection. So what are the chances of two or more ("complimentary or coherent") mutations that can occur at pinpoint areas of the informational areas of DNA or proteins of occurring? The odds start to greatly decrease when you have to simultaneous mutations. And what about three or more? I wouldn't say that it is impossible. The mutations have to be integrated and provide specific functions. So if the odds start to become astoundingly great, how can neo-Darwinism explain a severely IC system?
Look up "neutral drift" and be prepared to change your first sentence.
Please provide an operational definition of "severely IC", and give two examples.