Yes, it is clear that the writer(s) value Te over Ti, simply from how they talk about it. I feel like I am a bit more fair in trying to respect Te, but I know it's just the way Te folks talk based on my experience; and I think they get the gist of things right.
Is it representative? I think it's (ironically) a bit too generalized, for a type that claims to be wed to facts. I mean, I am clearly Ti and my Te was typically one of my bottom three functions. I have trouble remembering what I was like before I had to deal with the real world, but at this stage despite having Ti preferences I certainly take specifics into account and tie it to real life realities, rather than trying to survive in pure logic. Does that mean I have absorbed Te principles along the way? Or am I still generally Ti? Or is it just about being a person who isn't insane, who actually tries to live in reality and pay attention to the things they need to in order to accomplish her goals?
Put another way, yes, I am very "process based" in how I look at things and personally care more about process than even outcome... but it doesn't mean I expect the process to give me the outcome I want if reality works differently. What works in principle (and what SHOULD work) doesn't always line up with reality; the example of getting into a particular university program was a fine example. From early in life I was slapped around by the realities of my existence -- issues in my family, issues over my identity -- I did not have the luxury of pretending an ideal logical process governed everything based on the chaos in my life, and I had to grapple with how things could be expected to turn our realistically regardless of my own rational ideals of what "should be" if I simply followed the right process. I feel like I got over all that pretty early in most ways, although I still remember doing that kind of thing in my teens and early 20's with external organizations, developing strategies of "what SHOULD work" with them and then being really pissed off when they did not function that way... yet I had no control over that, I either had to jump the hoops or lose.
So now even if I do adhere to a "best process" about something, I also accept it might not get me what I hope because the concrete world operates in other ways. Pretty much if you CARE about the outcome of something (and not just process), you have to invest time and energy learning the specific tangibles of it, not just operate from a high-concept logical process.
I think the most successful people operate from both sets of principles. They have an awareness of a consistent trustworthy process by which to do things, to keep them on track. Meanwhile, they are actually paying attention to the harsh realities and demands of the concrete entities around them, so they can channel/apply the process appropriately and even navigate the exceptions to it. So I would develop these general processes in terms of what logically would follow what, in order to have a pathway forward towards my goal -- but each of those steps sometimes had realistic quirks I had to navigate or compensate for.