Has the research into the apparent "Pause" in GMSTs produced a substantially better explanation?

Zeke Hausfather tweets

Just six years ago many in the scientific community were obsessing
over the apparent "pause" or "hiatus" in surface temperatures. It
famously made it into the 2013 IPCC report in Box 9.2, which featured
this 15-yr comparison with climate models.

Clearly a lot of research was performed on the subject of the pause/hiatus (as demonstrated by it featuring in the IPCC report), but my question is what were the significant changes to our understanding of the apparent (1) pause/hiatus adding/overturning the explanation given by Foster and Rahmstorf in 2011 (largely ENSO, volcanic forcing and solar variation).

Obviously some of the research was on like-for-like comparison of models and observations and biases in the observations, but I am more interested in our understanding of internal climate variability.

(1) "Apparent" as there was no statistically significant evidence for the existence of a change in the underlying rate of warming, and as Hausfather points out, a careful analysis of the last fifteen years worth of data tells the opposite story.