American archeology is a rabbit hole of epic proportions, and insofar as you are not particularly familiar with it, your assumption that the cited article was more or less factual is understandable.

For most of a century, the Clovis First theory was jealously kept by gatekeepers that destroyed the careers of anyone that reported earlier evidence of human presence in the Americas. As a result American archeology is a case study in how scientific research is politicized and controlled via grants.

Many digs revealed much earlier human presence, such as Meadowcroft, and more than I can list here. Many scientists reporting factual evidence have had their careers destroyed, because well funded proponents of the Clovis First theory's funding was threatened by evidence it was false.

Meadowcroft was one of the first successful at breaking the stranglehold, due to the refusal of the embattled researchers to back down in the face of demonetization and the probative evidence dug. For some decades now the floodwalls of gatekeepers have been gradually broken down, and I was expressing surprise that the article seemed to claim this dig provided novel evidence of pre-Clovis human presence.

Actual research has shown that presence long ago, and the field seems to yet lag reality.