Last week's article *had* a link to McGee's blog, besides making it very clear that it reports about an opinion of the story. I read both last week, the article and the blog. IMNSHO, the facts didn't really differ, more the interpretation and reporting of details.
So, where did the content of the first have come under "further scrutiny"? (It's the one-side-view of the story where McGee's is the other-side-view.)
And, where is the new information that has come to light?
I don't consider last week's report a low point, I consider it very interesting and applaud LWN.net to inform me about that discussion.
For the record: I have never used Arch Linux, don't intend do, and don't know any of the involved persons. I follow this story only because I'm interested in the state of Linux distributions.
I assume that you are as uninvolved in Arch Linux as I am, otherwise you would have surely noted that.