Is it truly necessary to upgrade Tononi's criteria of consciousness in the Integrated Information theory? I am referring specifically to a very recent paper by Max Tegmark.
In this paper he proposes 3 more criteria (independence, dynamics, and utility principle) in addition to Tononi's original criteria (information and integration).

I have seen the paper being discussed in Hacker News, reddit's r/neurophilosophy, and lesswrong, but I think they are mostly light jabs on the actual content of Tegmark's proposal.
Yes in science all things are constantly upgraded. My main concern is that Tegmark's level of specificity has not been validated through peer review so it may be faulty and not suitable to build future theories.

As Rex Kerr points out in examining Tononi's general criteria I'd consider Tegmark's criteria more specific expositions rather than purely novel information. Further specification beyond Tegmark's work seems to be necessary to define consciousness beyond primary like metacognition. 

I don't see how a group of conscious individuals like a society having a collective consciousness by sharing information and integrating it into commonality like works of governance, science and art are differentiated from a conscious individual by either Tononi's or Tegmark's current level of specificity.

Edelman, G. M., Tononi, G. (2000). A Universe of Consciousness: How Matter Becomes Imagination. New York: Basic Books