If your accusation is that the article should have been updated to include this, I think that's fair. But my original question was about the facts of the article as is.
Edit: Think of it as a physic text homework problem. You have various facts listed throughout the problem, but your job is to use a correct formulas applied in the right sequences in order to derive a correct answer (aka interpret data "facts"). Simply re-stating the facts won't give you credit for the problem - the correct answer will (aka "conclusion").