I suspect, because I have been in a similar situation before, that the author is frustrated because the company first ignored/downplayed the significance of his concern, then blamed his issue on user error (without accepting responsibility), and then quietly modified their documentation and addressed the issue as if they had "just discovered it".
When companies behave this way it feels like you're being gaslit, which is extremely frustrating. The author may have gotten the result they initially wanted, but it would have felt like a huge, disrespectful, slap in the face.
Interestingly enough, I vaguely remember a pg article about how Lisp was so effective he could deploy fixes during a customer support call about the issue, to the point the customer thought they had messed up instead of the application. I can’t seem to find that now, but this one is close (in praising Lisp’s speed advantage for startups):
> As he points out in the article, they alerted him to the documentation updates in the course of their emails back and forth.
Technically, this is true. From the story though, it sounds like the PM included this information after the author reached out to the PM directly. Only after that did support say "I see we reached out to you about documentation updated!".
So while yes, they did technically tell the author about the documentation update, I'm not sure I would classify it as them "alerting" the author.
When companies behave this way it feels like you're being gaslit, which is extremely frustrating. The author may have gotten the result they initially wanted, but it would have felt like a huge, disrespectful, slap in the face.