Read him:
“If we reduce time and change to appearance, must it not be to an appearance which changes and which is in time, and is not time, then, shown to be real after all? This is doubtless a serious question, but I hope to show hereafter that it can be answered in a satisfactory way.”
One of your sources says he reproduces the argument (in the linked article) in a published book (The Nature of Existence), so perhaps he answers it in a satisfactory way in that book? Then again, maybe it was a bait-and-switch, or click bait?
It should be noted that his A, B, and C Series is not identical to A, B, or C Theory.