[laumars]

Did you read to the end? The article does actually make that point:

> But [Bannister] and Laughlin introduce a new wrinkle to the mystery: They’re skeptical that ‘Oumuamua is actually a cigar-shaped object, pointing to a paper published last summer that revisited the original observations of the object. The newer analysis concludes that ‘Oumuamua may actually have a pancake-like shape—a shape that Bannister likens to an overstuffed pita, similar to an object in the outer solar system called MU69, or Arrokoth.

I get your point that the article doesn't promote the significance of the disc-shape analysis enough however my takeaway from the article wasn't that it was claiming the origin of Oumuamua was solved but rather new research has identified potential scenarios where cigar-shaped objects could be naturally created (research which was spurred on by the discovery and mystery of Oumuamua).

If that was what the article intended to cover then it doesn't make sense to cover the disc-shaped analysis extensively throughout the article however for clarity the mention of Oumuamua probably should also have been demoted in at least the title. Sadly I think there's little chance of putting click-bait headlines back in the proverbial genie bottle.