> Update, March 27, 5:06 p.m. ET: Added perspective on Ken’s experience.
Internet archive confirms that this was the edit: The paragraph you quoted was added to the article the next day.
However, in this case, the edit is disclosed at the bottom of the article. Do you think this isn't sufficient? Does the edit disclosure need to contain a link to a diff of the changes or does it need to be at the top?
"Unnerved by the idea that he could have rolled over on his watch while sleeping and allowed criminals to take over his Apple account, Ken said ..."
Once the article was updated, the original sentence implying that criminals could take over your account while you are sleeping was completely rewritten to say the 180 degree opposite - completely reversing what the initial sensational content said. In reality it is not possible to accidentally hand over your account to attackers by accidentally tapping Allow on your watch in your sleep.
The update disclosure only says: "Added perspective on Ken’s experience."
> Ken didn’t know it when all this was happening (and it’s not at all obvious from the Apple prompts), but clicking “Allow” would not have allowed the attackers to change Ken’s password. Rather, clicking “Allow” displays a six digit PIN that must be entered on Ken’s device — allowing Ken to change his password. It appears that these rapid password reset prompts are being used to make a subsequent inbound phone call spoofing Apple more believable.