The coincidence of him being the 6th iteration in both cases is what's caught the author's eye, maybe the filmmakers liked the number 6 and used it in the 2nd plot thread after scrapping the first plot thread.
I guess I can see how that might have confused the author. I do feel that at some point in writing this article they should have noticed that they were conflating two entirely different concepts based solely on the number 6 being used in reference to them...
I don't think it's a confusion on the author's side. It would be confusing and redundant to have 5 predecessors on two different levels in the movie. IMHO, they simply developed/morphed the ultimately unused predecessor idea from the first movie into a different variant in the second movie.
It would confuse most viewers, so either it was a terrible choice to have similar stories about "sixth iteration", or it was originally one plot then changed to another.
I agree with the author that Cypher would have been a more nuanced character had he more justification for his doubt.
