I do not disagree with their definition of idempotency, but they silently assume resending the same result is the default. They discus this later on in the article but they do not seem to question why that might not be a good idea in the first place.

Edit: Perhaps it is my mental model that is different. I think it makes most sense to see the idempotency key as a transaction identifier, and each request as a modification of that transaction. From this perspective it is clearer that the API calls are only implying the expected state that you need to handle conflicts and make PUTs idempotent. Making it explicit clarifies things.

The article actually ends up creating the required table to make this explicit, but the API calls do not clarify their intent. As long as the transaction remains pending you're free to say "just set the details to X" and just let the last call win, but making the state final requires knowing the state and if you are wrong it should return an error.

If you split this in two calls there's no way to avoid an error if you set it from pending to final twice. So a call that does both at once should also crash on conflicts because one of the two calls incorrectly assumed the transaction was still pending.