The most recent and rigorous study is on a bonobo, where communication is done using touchscreen with buttons saying words (lexigrams). Even in this case interaction seems to be limited to “give me an item” or “put item in box”.
Teaching apes sign language became viewed as immoral?
"Less recent examples exist" is a positive assertion about the existence of even older examples. The 'less' attaches to the 'recent'. 'Less' can't attach to 'examples' because you can't have 'less examples', because 'examples' is countable.
"Fewer recent examples exist" is a negative assertion about the existence of newer examples. The 'fewer' attaches to the 'examples'.
Nit: humans are apes.
If the ape is instead given an object and already knows he’s supposed to put it in the fridge, yes, a dog can do that easily. Given a command-object or command-location, a dog can do that as well. A dog can discern “Go bed” or “go kennel” or “fetch ball” or “fetch toy”. “Put ball bed” would be tough. (Dogs won’t “hear” all the cruft words like “the”, they’ll focus in on words they know and puzzle away.)
In any case the degree to which the ape in the video “understands” isn’t clear. It’s possible even with command-object-location test, the ape is doing what I suspect the dog would do. The difference between them might be scale, rather than kind.
It was obvious to me she was able to understand and communicate. Obvious in the same it was for most humans I've met.