(I don't think this would change the overall message of the analysis), but one reason why the "Fund I" bump might be so pronounced compared to other reports is because of the "SPV as a service" data that was hinted at in the takeaways.
It's very common for these single-asset SPVs to be titled, "[Abbreviation] Fund I" -- but these aren't really the same type of "Fund I" as a multi-security venture fund run by a professional manager.
E.g.: (1) These are entities that are sort of arbitrarily titled "Fund I" as part of a template naming convention, but there's not as much of a direct expectation that they'll have a corresponding Fund II, III, etc. (2) Whether they do is more of a function of the underlying portfolio company raising a subsequent financing and giving the same SPV manager an allocation (which small time SPV managers often don't get pro rata for), rather than the fund manager's ability to raise a subsequent blind pool fund II.
One hack to find a lot of these SPV as a service filings is to search "a series of". They do have a formulaic filing process, but from looking into it, adding "fund I" is not part of that. It usually does indicate that its the first syndicate of the parent promoter, but they don't do it for every filing. Here is a search query where you can kind of see the variance: https://www.sec.gov/edgar/search/#/q=a%2520series%2520of&cat...
I've edited it to use what I think is representative language from the article itself. (This is to allow it to spend more time on HN's frontpage, because the article itself deserves it.)