Steelmanning is not the same as agreeing with an argument. According to the article, there can be situations that if you are steelmanning position X, you can be 'strawmanning' position Y. This however is not true. You can always steelman both positions (take the most charitable interpretation of both or multiple sides of the argument even if they contradict each other).
Don't confuse agreement with interpretation. As soon as you are stating some hypothesis is plausible (as in the article), you are starting to agree with the hypothesis, not just interpreting it.
Also imho the author is overanalyzing the concept. For me it just means argue in good faith so you can have a fruitful debate about the matter at hand instead of a distrustful word fight. All within reason of course.
Don't confuse agreement with interpretation. As soon as you are stating some hypothesis is plausible (as in the article), you are starting to agree with the hypothesis, not just interpreting it.
Also imho the author is overanalyzing the concept. For me it just means argue in good faith so you can have a fruitful debate about the matter at hand instead of a distrustful word fight. All within reason of course.