There are six bullets (of predictions) on page 10 of the PDF document, and 11 in the referenced webpage.

Two of the six are not mentioned on the webpage; one of the six corresponds to two separate bullets on the webpage; five bullets on the webpage are not mentioned in the PDF document (some bullets have more than one prediction).

All so-called predictions may be grouped into four classes, in a two-by-two matrix:

Quantified prediction (e.g. "the energy released in the impact will be between X and Y joules") vs qualitative ones (e.g. "the energy released in the impact will be huge").

Certain predictions (e.g. "the impactor will cease transmission x±y seconds before impact") vs uncertain ones (e.g. "the impactor may cease transmission before impact").

Note that a third possible classification can be ignored - for no prediction is the degree of certainty quantitative (e.g. there are no examples of "the impactor will cease transmission x±y seconds before impact (95% CL)").

Of the ~15 predictions (document and webpage combined), none are quantitative.

Of the ~15 predictions, ~eight are certain ("will"), though only three are absolute (the others are only "will" if another prediction in the logic chain is validated, none of the prior 'predictions' is certain, e.g. IF a discharge THEN {another prediction}).

In addition, ~five predictions are differences compared with what is "expected" from mainstream comet models, according to the authors. However, there are no references to any source where the authors' expectations can be independently checked (so you have to do your own research to find out whether the authors have accurately portrayed non-EU models, present fiction, or something in between).

Only two (maybe three) predictions are expressed in terms of direct observables; the rest could only be tested within the framework of interpretive chains of logic and theory (or so it seems to me); an example: "The impact/electrical discharge will not reveal "primordial dirty ice," but the same composition as the surface." - compositions are conclusions derived from long chains of analysis of observations. As I have already noted, the PDF document contains no discussion of observational analyses, nor any (external) references to any.

The most definite, most directly related to observables, prediction is this one, found in the PDF document, but not on the webpage: "The cameras will reveal sharply defined craters, valleys, mesas, and ridges". Given that the Electric Universe so-called predictions were made after the results of comet Halley, Wild2, and Borrelly missions had been made public, this is hardly surprising!

The other 'direct observables' prediction is equally under-whelming: "We also expect an interruption of impactor transmission before it reaches the surface" (PDF), "Electrical stress may short out the electronics on board the impactor before impact" (webpage) - no method of determining whether any "interruption of impactor transmission before it reached the surface" is due to "electrical stress [shorting] out the electronics on board" (or any other cause) is given.

The third prediction possibly relating to a direct observable ("maybe three" above) is "Copious X-rays will accompany discharges to the projectile"; this appears on the webpage but not in the document. It's a 'maybe' because it's not quantitative (and it's conditional on there being one or more 'discharges').

Clearly, pace ATKINS, none of these so-called predictions could be falsified by any of the results from the Deep Impact mission, without quite a lot of additional inputs (with the exception of the "sharply defined" prediction).

Given the prominence of the 'discharge' prediction(s), I shall examine them in more detail in my next post.