Well then you're wrong. Extreme poverty has a specific definition, which you can find in my earlier link.

This is a big part of the problem. You look at China and judge it based on your standards of poverty, presumably coming from a country that was much wealthier historically. By looking only at the present, and only in absolute terms, you miss the direction that things have gone.

There are huge differences in the scope of things that you might consider "extreme poverty." Someone who can't afford a washing machine is poor, and someone who can't afford their next meal is also poor, but taking people from the latter to the former is a massive improvement in their life, even though privileged people might look at both and just see "poor."

This is why organizations like the World Bank use specific definitions for terms like "extreme poverty" rather than just going off vibes.

You were given a clear definition of a real program that addressed a well-defined deficiency in society, and are responding to it by saying you subjectively interpret the label differently. Earlier you were discussing it as though the numbers were hidden or fabricated, now you're saying you don't agree with how they defined absolute poverty. In either case, however, you have not discounted that there was a clearly massive program targeting objectively defined metrics to mass success. The question at hand isn't if China is a far-future utopia or a dystopia, but where or not the working classes are put at the forefront of society, which is expressed through objective programs and measures.