You can know Frost's intentions by reading the letters he wrote to his colleagues about the poem. He makes his deception clear there. This was alluded to in the article and you can go read the source material yourself if you're not satisfied.

You are really making a statement about yourself and not about the poem. You want to read it a certain way, and intend to keep reading it that way, because that's the way you've always read it. The "words are the words" sentiment says nothing about the words, but rather how you read them.

The sort of traditionalism you're expressing fascinates me, as the psychological phenomenon appears to me to underpin things like climate denial-ism, anti-vaxxing and religious fundamentalism.

At the very core, I suspect, is a tendency to be defensive about our limitations. To apply enough critical analysis to the poem to divine Frost's true intent, to become informed enough about science to accept the basics of climate change, it takes a lot of time and effort, yet we treat people who can't / refuse / just don't have the time to do these things as if they're stupid.

So they retreat into defensive positions, that the evidence is suspect, why believe Orr, I / we had a way to interpret the poem / organize society so why should we change? Changing is cognitively expensive, just understanding that we need to change is the expensive part.