I read here and here that, strictly speaking, there are no counterexamples to Occam's rozar, because the latter implies no need for pluralism when unecessary, which is to be understood as "for the theory to be correct". For example, if a simple theory like "all material entities are composed of fire, water, air, and earth" is false (as it is), the fact that the composition of matter is more complex it cannot be considered a valid counterexample.
But then, under this interpretation of necessity, Occam's razor become a bit of a tautology: "more realism/complexity is not needed unless it conforms with reality", or equivalently, "simple theories that do not conform with reality are false".
Thus, how precisely one is to interpret Occam's razor in order to enable counterexamples, and so that it does not become a useless tautology?