You ask a question about logical implications rather than grammar. Perhaps logic us a sort of grammar, though, the grammar of thought. So I shall respond first about the logic of what the sentence is saying. I shall take it in chunks, not always in the same order as that in which the sentence you are asking about is written.
- ..., although important, ...
The word although is concessive. It is equivalent to "even if". So it is saying that what follows in some way contradicts what you would expect, granted that the writer agrees that it is important. So Proof-of-concept technologies are not as important as they might be (under, presumably, certain conditions). So the use of although serves in the sentence as a sign post, warning us that what we have just read is about to be contradicted or undermined in some way. We already know that we are going to be told that the value of these technologies are in some part deficient. It is a powerful device.
So what are those conditions said to be?
- They would be more valuable if "they were supported by careful experiments that identify key attributes or principles that span applications" (NB **I am using angled **
This is a straightforward remote conditional, with modal verbs. In logic, we are used to seeing the relationship put the other way round:
2a If they were supported by careful experiments, <then> they would be more valuable.
It is a straight instance of straight entailment: "P entails Q" (where P and Q are statements), therefore if we know P is true, then we are allowed to assume Q is also true. This move in logic is known as modus ponens. But a second entailment also follows. If Q is false, then P must be false. And this modus tollendi. So if careful supporting experiments are not ** carried out, these technologies are **not important . This move from 'if P then Q' to if not-Q then not-P used to be called by the Latin term modus tolle
And here is the rub. I turns out the be necessary to supply the bits in angled brackets to make the syllogism work. These are, nevertheless nothing more than clarifying insertions.
This writer, however, has chosen to write the statement in reverse, as it were. He says that the proof-of-concept technologies
are less valuable than they could be if they were supported by careful experiments etc...
So, by modus tollens,
If these technologies are not supported by careful experiments, then they are not less valuable than they could be.