I would expect there to be a more distinct summary (I can't identify a summary - the explanation seems to be ongoing until the end of the article)

Huh, I guess I have to work on that skill.

On the other hand more informal kinds of writing can also be persuasive.

Indeed, but it is also much harder to write effectively. By sticking to the formula you can at least guarantee a certain minimum standard.

Furthermore it might be worth noting that state-explain-summarize is the standard for scientific papers.

You mean "is supposed to be the standard". Having read an untold number of physics publications and arxiv entries, I find that the "standard" is followed in maybe half of them. It is not unusual for the authors to introduce new evidence in the Discussion section, toward the end of their paper, when it is time to summarize. It is quite common to launch directly into the background in the Introduction, without stating their point first.

And don't even start me on the seminars... An average presentation by an expert in their field is structured much worse than the one given by EY.