What I wrote, as you can see from your own link is,
The existing lifespan numbers are a commitment, nothing short of crippling financial problems would induce Red Hat to break it, but they don't prevent commercial interests from dictating an extension, even a very long one.
I'm not really sure how (short of just not being a fluent English speaker) you could understand this statement to now be disproven. Red Hat is still providing the 7 years it committed to, and now also offers an extension. Should I have also predicted what it would be called?
If I say "Yes, I will feed your goldfish for one week" and then your flight is delayed and you ask if I can now feed them for 10 days and I agree, I have not broken a commitment. Quite the contrary.