It is an interesting article (I’ve since read it, having just paused to dash off a comment) but my choice isn’t that extraordinary. That use of ‘polytropos’ is moderately famous (it is if you are academically into the classics or if you were a part of an education system that decided that, by gum, you would be into the classics, by hook or by crook) and her translation translates it radically differently.
And I am puzzled by the article. It is written as if translating ‘polytropos’ as ‘complicated’ is a new thing but it isn’t. Middle-Liddell isn’t new and it isn’t a particularly exhaustive dictionary and yet there complicated lies as meaning three of ‘polytropos.’ And it is beyond imagining that I should know this and she an Oxford classicist, for heaven’s sake wouldn’t.
Yes, focusing on just the positive qualities (wise, &c) or negative (wily, shifty, &c) is a mistake: a reading-in that’s not permitted by the text. Her translation improves on those, but I think ‘a man of twists and turns’ is better as it, using English idiom, conveys the manifold meanings of the Greek original: both turned and turning, both exalted wisdom and base cunning. A complicated man.
 I actually think her final lightly grandstanding ‘straying husband’ is half-better. ‘Husband’ is reaching too far, surely, but ‘straying’ is an interesting choice.
 ‘Andros’ is husband, fair enough, but it means husband only in context, cf. ‘man and wife.’ If the author meant husband right off the bat they’d have used ‘posis’ or ‘gametes’ surely. That’s why I think she’s grandstanding a bit, because I’ve no doubt she has a LSJ to hand and knows all of this way, way, way, &c better than I do.
 Shaft joke mercifully removed.
I’m similarly puzzled by the section on ‘maidservants.’ Yes, in modern usage it doesn’t convey that these are nearly certainly young female slaves, but the word ‘maidservant’ was used extensively in this very meaning in the KJV Bible which earlier translators doubtless expected the readers to be quite familiar with. I will grant that the original contains no slurs, of course, and her translation of this section is as precise and well-rendered as any could hope for.
Still, I am glad this sort of thing is still worked on and talked about. And the ultimate test of the translation isn’t really what you or I or anyone here thinks about it: if it resonates with people and if it connects them with an ancient tradition, then it will doubtless thrive. Omnis traductor traditor, naturally, but like in history it isn’t treason if you win.