So if I understand your article correctly, you're basically saying that Alan Guth's original work augmented and modified the "big bang" model (originally Hoyle's dismissive term, as he clung to the steady-state model to the end of his life) and therefore the big bang model isn't the end of the story. This is correct, and I don't know of any cosmologists who'd argue for the former "naive big bang" model - which itself helped explain previous anomalies back in the day. The fact is, our understanding of the universe is continually expanding (like the universe itself) and the more sensitive our instruments become, the more we discover minute deviations from the predictions of our models, which in turn forces improvements or occasionally entirely new models to be developed. Science is a series of discoveries that ultimately must be supported by empirical evidence, and we proceed step-wise into the unknown. That's what makes it so interesting and so satisfying.