You could do the same in reverse as well. Many of the features listed in the first paragraph existed before in other languages, though probably not all of them in a single language. In fact, I believe the design process (sensibly) favored best practices of existing languages rather than completely new and unproven mechanisms.

So there was considerable borrowing from PASCAL, CLU, MODULA(-2), CSP. It's possible that the elaborate system for specifying machine representations of numbers was truly novel, but I'm not sure how much of a success that was.

I agree. There are quite a few places where they author claims that Ada had a concept first and some language got the same concept later, but the two concepts are different enough that examples would help to show where they are similar.

Especially if we assume that most readers are not Ada experts and that enough languages are mentioned that most people don't know the details of all of them.

This is not a writeup of "Ada is better than everything else". The author is explaining how Ada achieved safety/reliability goals that your favorite language independently evolved much later on. That is why they kept bringing up year-of-arrival for comparison.

Examples would be a nice bonus but I think the author eschewed such because they weren't interested in writing a tutorial. They had a very specific point to make and stuck to it, resulting in a very informative but concise article that reads well because of its highly disciplined authorship.

I prompted Claude for some demo code to appreciate the language and it did a good job. Definitely some pretty neat stuff in there that exposed some unrealized FOMO. Of course I knew of Ada for decades, but I never got into it.

I imagine an ada dev would find the pattern grating over the decades, so it reads like an expression of that experience.