I've done things like that and if I were publishing articles under my name I'd do things like that.
For instance: If a few years ago I published a piece on the best way to get #1 ranking in the local pac in your city for your type of business, the clearest signal to google is that the physical location is near or in the center of the "centroid" for that city. That was the case a few years ago.
If I had updated that article in late 2016 I would have stated that the best way to get that coveted #1 spot in the local pac results would be to locate your business closest to the largest population base (or the largest population base that searches for your product service).
Very different set of rules/guidelines. The suggestion from several years ago is completely null and void. The suggestion from last year rules with great consistency. As IamLost has said, I look at the sources of traffic to my sites or pages. I'm always looking for relevancy. If I had received traffic from Cre8, I'd want you to have the new updated article. Its relevant.
Also, in agreement w/ Lost on another point: For links I'm not always focused on the link juice...actually I prefer traffic and relevant traffic. Any link that brings relevant traffic is a valuable link/ with or without link juice.
As EGOL says the requests might be spammy. Could be. Could also have relevancy. Could have relevancy to readers at Cre8. I don't know. I'd look at it. If its BS I'd ignore it. If the writer follows up with a request such as EGOL suggested....forward the request to him. I bet he is experienced in dealing with the spammers. If its relevant I might just update the link as a favor to the readers.
If you get a lot of these, you don't have time to review them. If they are once in a blue moon...check it out.