I understood it that way too. Only that it fails in that interpretation.

Just because currently the most popular method for parsing JSDoc utilizes TypeScript-related tooling doesn't mean we should associate them with each other.

To my previous example, an ISO C++ can be compiled by GCC but also can be compiled by Clang (and many other compilers).

Perhaps I should've expanded further to "the specific JSDoc dialect supported by the TypeScript compiler and TypeScript syntax are two alternative ways to …".

Unlike ISO C++ I'm not aware of any standard for what JSDoc is outside of specific implementations. There's a bunch of stuff documented on https://jsdoc.app/ but it only partially overlaps with the JSDoc syntax that TypeScript uses, and is not what the article is talking about.

The situation is not unlike Markdown before the CommonMark standard (except with less pressure to standardize, because most codebases are written with specific tooling in mind). Maybe we should refer to it as "TypeScript-flavored JSDoc".