Pretty sure that was exactly my point. I'm sure someone finds the behavior "interesting", but if the same thing is happening for the same reason, I'm arguing those details that everyone finds "interesting" aren't "important".
That's voodoo thinking. "OK, all those other times everyone was wrong about this. But this time we have new jargon, so we can figure it out!"
Nothing in the linked article (or anywhere else) gives you the magic you want. This is just a new way of explaining long-settled ideas.
This is like trying to debug a linked list bug via disassembly. "OK, fine, it was a bug before on x86, but look, now it's compiled for RISC-V and uses entirely different register schemes, so this time it will work!"