The Athletic article is like a lot of Athletic articles: It puts a big question, provides a long text consisting largely of things that are already well-known and at the end of it you're left not so much with an answer as a few pieces of information you didn't have before.
In this case, that's largely a few opinions coming from unnamed sources, but it does give the impression that they've spoken to quite a few relevant people. Generally that yields a vaguely positive, if not glowing, assessment. If you add up the negatives, it doesn't amount to that much: Carrick can be "schoolmasterly" in his training drills, McKenna lacks charisma though the quality of his work inspires respect, training might benefit from having a coach with more direct elite credentials than Carrick and McKenna, players had expected more of a bollocking than they got after the loss to Sheffield United, and the "communal approach" can get in the way of incisive decisionmaking in some situations. Overall the tone is positive, and it's emphasised that no one is remotely close to panic and that the players are solidly behind OGS.
All of which pretty much dovetails with the image of "largely happy with how things are working" that is already there, without anyone going so far as enthusiastic praise.
This, of course, satisfies no one with a sword to grind in discussion threads like this, on either side of the debate.
But it's yet another sign that there is cause neither for elation or abject dissatisfaction.