You seem to have posted the same link twice, maybe by error?
I think the 144dB for 24-bit and 96dB for 16-bit dynamic range is well established. You just gotta google more if you want to understand the technical details on this. Both the sources you cited above used the same value, right? So there’s no conflicting information there.
And I also think both sources are also in agreement that 24-bit gives more headroom (against the noise floor), so it’s better to record using 24-bits vs 16-bits because you don’t need to record super hot to minimize the noise floor if you use 24-bit. They’re both in agreement there, too.
The head-fi.org paper simply states that if you playback something recorded in 16 bit, and the same thing recorded in 24 bit, you most likely won’t be able to tell the quality difference between them. If you have an exceptionally high noise floor, you may hear a little more noise on the playback of a 16 bit recording vs a 24-bit recording, that is if the recording material has enough of very quiet passages to enable you to detect this. But the overall quality between the 2 recordings (except for the noise floor) is not really discernable by the human ear.
The homestudiocorner paper doesn’t disagree with the head-fi.org statement either. It simply didn’t address the issue of whether one can tell the difference between the quality of the 24-bit vs 16-bit recording or not, on the playback end. It simply said that it’s better to record in 24-bit, but make your final master (the playback) 16-bit if you want. By this, it reaffirms what the head-fi.org paper said, that the 24-bit has the advantage for the recoding/mixing process. But on the playback, most people wouldn’t be able to tell the quality between the 2 bit-dept recordings.
So I don’t see any inconsistency or disagreement between the 2 papers.