Yeah, I agree. "Context omission is always subjective" seems like a wrong way to put it. Let's split facts into assertions about a model/approximation of the world being accurate (usually implicit), and an assertion about what the truth is within that model (explicit). (That split isn't always a clear bright line, btw.)

The first part is implicit, and thus 1. less visible, 2. more fluid, in that in an argument, you can often pretend you had a different context in mind later, or your intelocutor can have a very incompatible one in mind. Hence the need for trust and compromise. But it's not really any more subjective than the second part - the choice of model is very much like the choice of fact/assertion/observation within the model: it strongly depends on the world, we can tell it is intersubjective, people tend to agree on it independently, we can call it "correct" or "wrong", etc. That's all closer to what we usually call objective, like "the sky is blue", unlike "I like anchovies", even though you always need context even for objective claims ("not at night, obviously").

Wouldn't evidence fall under the observation category in the trifecta that constitutes "Facts"?

It feels like this attenuation of facts implies, because of the sheer amount of context and observations there could be, there cannot be clear and easily verified truth conditions. Trust feels like the catch-all to where observation and context fail because Part 3 ends with allowing the reader faithful beliefs to a certain extent. I believe the second part also goes into alternative facts to explain the consensus people can buy into depending on the "Facts" - perhaps to eventually lead up to the end.

Wittgenstein's revenge, I would think, puts us in a blackhole passed the event horizon. We are inescapable of the language(s) we speak and have implicitly put truth on the otherside. Eventually, truth (technically, this kind of truth can always be around us but we just don't know it) would gravitate towards us but only if we're in the right space, time, and conscious enough. We can at least begin accept it then. That's just for ourselves too. Imagine trying to share truth with someone else! Feels like a miracle if that happened especially in our day and age. Then again, I feel like truth is outside the scope of the article, so this is just my understanding.

Using the book "how to lie with statistics" as an example of the importance of being skeptical is just wierd. The author will do well to remember just who Darrell Huff was, a skeptical statistician hired by the tobacco industry claiming cancer from smoking was a statistical artifact. You can't use his book as an example for why one should be skeptical. It's just plain stupid. A better alternative would be to use Cohen's paper of the significant p-value of brain activity inside a dead salmon. Please don't make facts about true or not, but add the degree of likelihood and effect size to the argument.