I don't think Southack knows or cares what is going on. He painted himself into a corner saying that mutations are not necessary for a monoclonal bacterial culture to develop antibiotic resistence. He does not have the honesty to admit the article he cited starts out by saying mutations are required.
The issue of whether the word "recessive" is appropriate when applied to bacteria is a nit. Recessive traits for antibiotic resistance did not exist in the organism cited. That is a fact clearly stated in the article. The article clearly states that two mutations were required.
"Recessive traits", as defined in all reference works, is not a term that applies to non-sexually reproducing organisms.
Hmmm. He's very impressed with the prestige of the (drumroll!) National Academy of Sciences. There can be no doubt for any reader of this thread that he endorses every word of every sentence in that article. Who would question it? He believes that every line must be taken absolutely literally in the Genesis sense.
No, it follows that we must be mistaken in thinking that Southack is saying there is no role for mutation in bacterial adaptation. Otherwise, there would be a contradiction.