I'm still a little confused as to why, if the White House hasn't said anything on the subject, it's factually incorrect to say that, on the basis of new evidence, its role was "wider than it said."  

But whatever.  As The Times understands, the substance of the report -- that White House lawyers were involved in the decision to destroy interrogation tapes -- which the White House doesn't deny, is a whole lot more important than the dispute over the sub-hed. By conceding the minor point, The Times has ensured that the focus stays on the news itself -- which is exactly what the White House wanted to avoid.