I believe any idea has a warranty period, after which its original proposer no longer holds definitive authority regarding its explanation. For disruptive innovation, an idea coined in 1995 and oriented towards a highly volatile business environment, this warranty period has long passed.
Of course, that the original proposer hold no authority does not mean that their explanation has been thoroughly discarded. Rather, it means that their opinion does not necessarily have more merit than another commenter’s, especially if the “other commenter” (not me; check out the HBR article I posted) represents mainstream interpretation.
In other words, the drift of the theory does not necessitate a return to its origin, as your comment implies. Rather, the fact that a drift has happened is a demonstration of limitations of the original. This assertion forms the basis of the nascent discipline of conceptual history. YMMV as usual.