I stoppped reading mid-article. Then I decided to come here to indulge in the metaness of criticizing the article critical of language style guides that criticize classics.
Silly business.
Silly business.
In other words, I'm confused too.
I think the article starts on its best point, and then never comes back to it. There is less editorial process than there used to be. It's not inconsistent to fail to adhere to your own style if one of the methods that you use to adhere to your own style is an editor.
Writing communicatively is hard, but testing whether your writing is communicative is easy, just have someone (else) try to read it, and tell you if they found it convincing.
Why did the author not come back to this? It seems like it should be the point of the article.