It sounds like you are bringing in an orthogonal element to the issue of what the label "falsified" really means, which is, when is it appropriate to even use that label. There is certainly a period of uncertainty surrounding any new experimental result, while it awaits verification and while the proper interpretation is wrestled with. But I view the question here as more, once we've done that and we pretty much know with complete certainty that Newton's gravity has been "falsified by experiment" and no modification can "fix" it while still maintaining its basic structure and unifying principles, why is it still used vastly more often than the "unfalsified" theory of Einstein? Yes, you're right that falsification is itself not a simple black-and-white issue, but even in pretty clear-cut cases (like Newton's gravity), it still misses the mark to think that science is a process of dropping ideas that have been falsified and replacing them with ones that haven't.

Science always involves a tradeoff, and like all tradeoffs, it is not unique. The tradeoff is you want to get as much simplification and unification as you can, but you don't want to "throw out the baby with the bathwater". That is, you don't want the result to fail to meet some realistic accuracy goal that you are interested in achieving. It is a naive scientist that thinks they are attempting to discover "what really is", such that you could use black-and-white thinking ("that's been falsified so it can't be what really is, I'd better drop that failure like a rotten egg").

__________________
Logic is the grammar of truth.

Meaning and absolute certainty are incompatible, and profound meaning and absolute certainty are profoundly incompatible.

The only thing intelligence is capable of is recognizing itself.