Thanks for commenting! The whole technique is foundational Bayes. Doesn't use MCMC, but still bayes even with the use of credibility intervals. I don't make much of a use of priors to your point and that can definitely be seen as somewhat controversial, but each window is aggregating information on all of the hypotheses given all of the data. That's why I qualify it as "bayesian". How do you typically qualify bayesian vs not?
To your point of the issue with false positives... yep! :) It's a very simplistic naive approach. I read over the article you linked to and I think the results are fairly similar except that my (again very simplistic) technique finds many change points if they exist... and possibly even none. So what I'm doing generalizes more.
The sequential nature of what I'm doing bothers me too, so I'd love pointers to other articles doing something similar.