So the Council on Foreign Relations source couldn’t have altered enough details to provide cover while retaining the same main points?
If ‘Roger’ was to be casually identified, his real name would have been used so details could be conclusively verified.
The CFR link actually leads to a Washington Post article, so the Post is the actual source -- not the CFR.
And I'm not aware of newspapers altering details in order to avoid disclosing the identity of their subject. What's the point of including these details if they're altered and, therefore, meaningless?
Besides, official Washington would know who the Director of the CTC was at any given time. It's not a clandestine role, according to the article.