I think the writer of that article is judging the show by a different standard than they should be. They seem to be treating it as a non-fiction work, and then criticizing it for not being so.
I don't remember if the podcast specifically talks about these things in the way that writer framed them (beyond elaborating that the altered parts were altered due to storytelling). The article spends a great deal of time talking about the 5th episode, the final trial, and pointing to it as fiction. But... we already knew that detail, and the show was up-front about that. Legasov wasn't at the trial IRL, and the presentation did not happen at all like how it was portrayed. It was simply done that way for the viewer's benefit. They took Legasov's direct testimony and his personal works and wove them into the show, but I'm not sure the intent was ever to say "This is what really happened, exactly like this—this is non-fiction."
Although I will disagree that the show downplayed the underlying culprit. The premise behind Legasov's character arc in the show was all about how Chernobyl was inevitable due to the system. There was no need to construe, poorly or otherwise, the Soviet power relationships because they are, at best, window dressing to the show's actual story. Very little time is spent on the political maneuvering outside of how it relates directly to the characters, and what they show is "good enough" (e.g. the KGB had a vested interest in controlling the narrative, the Central Committee was out of its depth but was eager to find a scapegoat, the Soviets were intent on sweeping it under the rug).
The writer goes on to damn the "few great men" narrative approach, but I don't see an alternative (and the writer didn't propose one either). If they separated Khomyuk into the individual persons, the show would have been objectively impossible to make while maintaining similar pacing and delivery. As it is, the intent behind her character was specifically to boil all those individuals into an avatar that could help railroad the plot along and represent that the Soviets were unable to hide Chernobyl from those involved in that field.
I mean, if you're using the show as your sole resource for facts, that's more on you (general 'you') than the show or the material. A different structure to the show wouldn't change that someone is trying to use a dramatization of a real event as unfiltered truth. The show has enough truth in it, and its fictions are based on other truths, that you can reasonably use it as a foundation for seeking more information in a more academic light. But it still isn't the truth, and it was never meant to be (wouldn't be a dramatization otherwise).
