Yes. I don't really see how I was arguing in favor of UBI.

You wrote this:

1. a group of people were assured jobs

2. the job assurance was changed to a basic income, no need to work anymore

3. people still showed up to work

errr... seems OK to me? It proves that even if there is an UBI most people will still work. The UBI is just a safety net that assures you do not die of exposure if you get to spend some time without working (for whatever reason). Your example proves that the UBI does not really distort the job market (except for the most shitty jobs, which is alright if they disappear). Also, your example proves that the existence of an UBI does not turn people lazy.

All in all, your example is a great argument for the UBI!

If they'd skipped straight to UBI they likely wouldn't have done these jobs.

But this is a hypothesis not actually supported by your example. A better example would be a case were the application of an UBI created negative effects in a society.

I'm not sure why you need to prove that it creates negative effects to say that there is a better option. Is UBI better than nothing? Probably quite a lot. Better than a JG? No, I don't think so.

This story very much demonstrates that giving people jobs helping the community rather than just money is a better option. They were both productive and happier. So much so that they didn't want to stop.

I'm sure the nature of the job probably had something to do with it. If these jobs were in call centers for debt collectors they probably would have quit en masse and been happy about it.