I completely agree with D-Roc. The "article" is simply supposition gleaned from VOAs, and not based upon UOAs. Knowing the inputs does not always assure the results. It's a good predictor, but not a guarantee. If we had no information as to outcome, then knowing the starting point would be paramount. But, the reality is that we can study the effects of CJ-4 oils, and the results are quite impressive.
As an analogy, you can have the "best" ball players, and yet the underdog may win the championship occasionally. Knowing the starting roster is good; knowing the final score truly tells the story.
What's very important to know is that CI-4+ is best paired with LSD fuel; the higher sulphur content in the fuel is better dealt with utilizing the higher TBN of CI-4+. Most people see the reduction of some of the additives (calcium, magnesium, etc) as a detriment. But the reality is that when CJ-4 oils are paired with ULSD fuel, those attributes are not as important as they once were. The base stocks and additive package have been tweaked in CJ-4, to best suit the ULSD fuel. And let's not forget that with the newest generation of DPF/EGR engine designs, soot control is paramount. So in some ways, CJ-4 is far superior to CI-4+, because it was designed to deal a level of contamination that its predecessor was not.
There is plenty of industry evidence, and many UOAs now, to show that CJ-4 is a very viable lubricant.
To answer your specific question as to which CI-4+ is "best", you'd have to define your personal criteria for important parameters, and then rank order them. Cost, availability, performance, etc all play into this decision.