You'll have to ask who wrote it for an explanation, and since he signed a bunch of BTC addresses from 2009, maybe it's Satoshi - it seemed appropriate to me in answer to your question. It is logical that Bitcoin must be developed and upgraded, but the emphasis is on the fact that it must retain its essence, that is, there should not be some radical changes like what people who did some of their visions of Bitcoin did. All of this is written in the context of proving that CW (Faketoshi) is not Satoshi.
I like your response now, and I agree with that. Maybe you are Satoshi after all?
It's also difficult to disagree with that person - signing so many old keys at once and so long after 2009 is quite a feat! That person has very good chances of being Satoshi.
(I should have checked but thought you were referencing on of the other Satoshi things, many of which I question heavily.)