I think at this point we're talking past each other a bit. As I read the comment in question, the concern was not whether the (article -> comment) reproduction

I think at this point we're talking past each other a bit. As I read the comment in question, the concern was not whether the (article -> comment) reproduction was faithful, but about the original (speech -> article) reproduction. That's not an unreasonable question to carry some skepticism about in the general case, and it's not something that checking the article can answer. I agree that the cited reason for increased skepticism in this case - the insertion of ", said ..., " - isn't actually cause for increased skepticism.