I feel some people here are misunderstanding the blog post.
Sandi Metz IMHO doesn't claim that the problem occurs at step 2 or 3. She doesn't claim that it's wrong to introduce abstraction when there is duplication.
What she is saying instead is that the problem occurs from step 6 onwards: when you find yourself wanting to reuse an abstraction that, regardless of whether it made sense in the first place or not, has outlived its usefulness.
I think this is in agreement with other points that she often makes, about being bold, but methodical about refactorings.
The whole discussion about "you should never abstract away code before you see the third duplication" has little to do with the article, and I'm also really not sure it's good advice.
Sandi Metz IMHO doesn't claim that the problem occurs at step 2 or 3. She doesn't claim that it's wrong to introduce abstraction when there is duplication.
What she is saying instead is that the problem occurs from step 6 onwards: when you find yourself wanting to reuse an abstraction that, regardless of whether it made sense in the first place or not, has outlived its usefulness.
I think this is in agreement with other points that she often makes, about being bold, but methodical about refactorings.
The whole discussion about "you should never abstract away code before you see the third duplication" has little to do with the article, and I'm also really not sure it's good advice.