Also, do you consider that the Karnak king list - first described in 1825 - which lists sixty one kings, though only 39 are still legible - and with only one of these not written in a cartouche - is also arguably 'falsified'?
No, not at all. I don't remember the details of the accusation against Champollion, I think I made a note of it but didn't take it that seriously. I think it had to do with only one cartouche at Abydos. It was at a time when everyone outside of Egypt wanted to see the list and had to rely on the copies made. Copies were sent out, but they weren't in agreement and it sounded like London was getting frustrated in trying to get an accurate copy. Understandably so.
I don't even know what the outcome of the accusation was, I didn't care to spend the time looking. I've come across a few instances of the early egyptologists not copying something accurately, adding or taking away words to suit their interpretations. It's been done in this thread regarding the page of Vyse's journal. when Stower wrote "it is slightly different from the cartouche in the Great Pyramid;". To me it reads "..... from the cartouche in the FIRST pyramid. It's easy to do, but changing one word can change the whole meaning.