The term "wing glove" generally refers to the area where the RCC bolt-on material is closest to the fuselage. This is also the general area where USAF imagery shows structural damage.
The second MMT summary analyzing the debris hit was made on Jan. 20 and had no mention of the leading-edge wing glove area. That report was more focused on orbiter black tiles on the vehicle's belly. The third and final summary issued on Jan. 27 discusses the black tiles again, but also specifically says "Damage to the RCC [wing leading edge] should be limited to [its] coating only and have no mission impact." Investigators in Houston are trying to match the location of the debris impact with the jagged edge shown in the Air Force imagery.
This tells me they made three assesments of the situation.
The first on Jan 18, two days after the launch, which states the strike appears to have occurred on or relative close to the "wing glove" area near the orbital fuselage.
The second, on Jan 20 which made no mention of the wing glove area.
And finally the third, on Jan 27 which also neglected to mention the wing glove area.
My question is, why did they leave the area they initially though was struck out of their subsequent two assesments? It looks to me like overlooking first impressions.
The article states the RCC is the same as the wing-glove area, so the MMT concluded twice that some kind of damage occurred to the RCC/wing-glove area, right where the USAF photos show...duh!