I disagree with this advice, and consider it outdated.

Arguably, seq_cst is helpful for informal reasoning, because it's not hard to imagine all permutations and interleavings. But in my opinion, nobody should be doing lock-free programming based on informal reasoning. Algorithms should be considered incorrect unless they've been rigorously validated, ideally with formal methods or at least model checking.

Very few lock-free algorithms require sequential consistency. There are exceptions, such as Chase-Lev queues, but they are rare.

The added confidence that seq_cst gives you if the algorithm hasn't been properly validated is IMHO worthless.