"Consistent with this..." I read as "this cause has significant part in justification that...". ISS obviously is on orbit not because it's easier to build in space than on the surface of a natural satellite - if Earth would have a Deimos orbiting it at height of 1000 km, I see it quite possible that ISS would be on the surface of such satellite, with all ifs and buts - but because ISS is roughly in the closest location to Earth which is still "space" and doesn't require continuous re-launching (like New Shepard).

Coming back to the topic, I'd like to see the reasons why both approaches could be beneficial. I see, for example, that for space-based constructions we don't - mostly - have interference from the surface of anything, while for surface-based constructions we have support and resources. Do we have a full analysis which would allow us to say "surface always sux, in-space forewa" or "only l00mers build in space, real men are firmly grounded"? Or, talking about a finer point, deployment only - do we have full justification?