"The article had way more words than necessary, but also: 7-10 heavy singles per session? Uh no thanks"
That's 7-10 over ONE session, not per session. The article is not geared towards newbies at all because a novice would have no need to lift at this intensity. I definitely agree that for the initiated, the article has too many words but the truth is that there are not many trainees, in the big wide world, who are initiated into any kind of near-maximal training. The extra explanation is there so they understand the thinking behind it, and things like why it's not 7 to 10 singles per session. It is hard to balance things so that they will work for every audience, but indeed this is meant for those with a bit more training time under their belt but that haven't really been given to understand near maximal training. This is something to cycle one or two lifts through some of the time, it's not a training manifesto. Yes, of course everything depends on the person!
"It's easier if your max is lower"
You guys are not reading through and understanding the why's and wherefores. This is the purpose of the relative max, which would be hinging on your best ability for that day and even very advanced trainees can lift at at least 90% of that for most of the singles required for a day, if not the full goal for that day.
"It's basically a variation of Doug Hepburn's old-school routine."
I don't really know much about Doug Hepburn and for this particular protocol, there was nothing borrowed from him, but it does borrow a lot of concepts from a lot of people, including my own experience. If you want to think it is a variation of something from him, I'm fine with that. I doubt, however, that Hepburn incorporated the relative max.
Thanks for linking,