> I am conflicted on this specific recommendation.

Me too. In particular, I'm concerned with this:
"LLM-gen-AI users should keep detailed and accurate records of their interaction and save those meta-artifacts for posterity. "

A proper-written LLM assisted code, as described at the recommendation, requires a careful human review of whatever LLM code was generated, which usually means that the actual patch would be just taking suggestions from what LLM proposed. This is not much different than using a web browser to search for some coding information.

Well, people don't save for posterity browser interactions until they get something useful. At most, when there is, for instance, a superuser.com article that has a high match, they could add a URL with it at the patch description. Also, I don't see, on most cases, much value on preserving such interactions for posterity.