The article discusses a 2007 proposal [1] for 240/4 to be used as a private address space -- essentially a bigger, alternative to 10/8 -- and then goes on to imply/state that the proposal failed as it was felt that adding further sticking plasters to IPv4 was somehow undermining IPv6 adoption. The point of the article seems to be to show that in reality, 240/4 is being used as a private address space despite not being officially sanctioned as such.
As I think you're pointing out, that's not necessarily interesting because if 240/4 were officially sanctioned as private space, then these people would likely not want to use it, for the same reasons that they aren't already using 10/8.
If such huge companies who has both the need and the resources to use ipv6 internally would rather stick to 240/4 or 10/8 ipv4, what hope do smaller organizations have of adopting ipv6?
As I think you're pointing out, that's not necessarily interesting because if 240/4 were officially sanctioned as private space, then these people would likely not want to use it, for the same reasons that they aren't already using 10/8.
[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wilson-class-e-0...