The title & subtitle don't seem to match the content. The body of the article indicates the author simply doesn't want steelmanning to provide a negative incen

The title & subtitle don't seem to match the content. The body of the article indicates the author simply doesn't want steelmanning to provide a negative incentive to present a more complete argument even if parts of it are not as strong as others. It seems reasonable that this should be avoided, but also an extremely small concern: If people are streelmannig you, then pretty much by definition they are not going to dismiss your entire argument just because a part of it isn't as strong. If premises $A and $B are sufficient to support claim $F then presenting weaker premises $C and $D take away nothing at all while still adding some small value. I just don't see how this is at all an issue for a group of people already engaging in productive discussion techniques. And if a reader/audience is not, then they're not going to steel man you to begin with, so it's a moot issue. The examples provided where an argumenter "paints themselves into a corner" are example where the argumenter did a poor job of trying to make a counter claim, in one case engaging in their own strawman argument. That's on them, not the principle of charity. And what's the alternative? The author says "take a step backward, look at what your saying to see if it makes sense." Which seems trivially obvious to the point of not really needing to be stated It applies as a general rule. It just seems like there's really not much of an issue here, and could instead be summed up with a single statement: Don't allow steelmanning to don't descend into commiting fallacies of your own.