Actually no, the unit articles in Pro Patria are written by the units, and do not dictate regimental custom in themselves. The entire issue came about because the unit was using the "Para" naming without formal regimental approval, to the point of loosing the context of the Regiment's tradition for naming (i.e., lettering) companies.
The place it should appear to have regimental backing is in Regimental Standing orders. The unit had an opportunity to seek approval for it, but never chose to use it. The Annexes to Chapter 2 of Regimental Standing Orders are supposed to be prepared by the battalions. Each annex is structured to present the individual unit's organization, symbols and any unique customs or traditions.
I can attest that at least the last three Regimental Adjutants have repeatedly asked the Battalions to update these Annexes for regimental approval and republication. This annex is one opportunity where a CO and RSM could present their annex to the Regimental Executive Committee and could have requested Senate approval for an unofficial naming of "Para" to be recognized for the company so tasked (since there was no guarantee it would always be Mike Coy). Unfortunately, that was never done, and attempts at common usage were mistakenly presumed to be a quasi-official change in naming - which the Regiment corrected. (Seeking recognition through an RSO amendment may not have worked, at least the first time, but it would have put it on the table.)