That's what I thought as well. Kinda hard to make a ruling if we're not sure that "passing a runner - kind of" means that she stood in the right-handed batter's box to let the BR completely pass her before she stepped over the plate without touching it, or she stepped over the plate without touching, and waited for the BR to touch while standing in the left-handed box. It is confusing.

And just maybe the author meant passing because the trail runner touched first, not because there was physical passing.

If the runner is standing in either batter's box facing the trail runner in order to give a high five, chances are pretty good she's past the plate.

What you state COULD be true. It is, however, both illogical and argumentative, as we tend to accept the stated facts as .........facts.

If ruled passing (and not an appeal), there is no argument available to that judgment. Calling it a missed base, rather than a passed runner, if the preceding runner did not PASS the plate is simply lack of cojones, in my opinion. You cannot miss what you have not reached AND passed.