Starting off with a groud based jet and trying to convert it to a deck based fighter is almost always a bad idea. It is usually a better idea to design a deck based fighter and convert that for ground based operation. A new clean sheet design for a naval fighter using learning from the AMCA program might be easier than trying to convert the AMCA to carrier operations with the TEDBF serving in the interim.So those Rafales are for Vikrant and TEDBF for Vikramaditya to replace the Migs... Tbh I still don't see the point of the program. The artice mentioned Rafale as an "interim" arrangement but in my eyes TEDBF is the real interim before AMCA arrives, and a possible naval variant of it.
You've mentioned that the chances of TEDBF progressing as-is would be low but are there more details to it? It is indeed way more logical to just skip this TEDBF idea all together.
The Mig-29K and Su-33 are good examples of this. The Russians were not able to ruggedized them enough for successful carrier operations. Some of it is due to the lack of Russian capabilities and funding but it also shows why converting ground based fighters for carier operations is hard.
The 40 Mig-29k that India currently has is theoretically enough for India's two carirers as they are relatively small and India isn't going to be operating both at the same time. Even the UK with its much larger carriers only intends to have 48 F-35Bs for their two carriers.
My guess would be that the IN probably intended for the Migs to operate off both carriers with the TEDBF replacing them in the 2030s when the Migs would be up for retirement. However because of the poor serviceablility of the Migs they felt that they need a new jet before 2030 and as the Rafale is already operated by the airforce ordering some for the IN makes the most sense. The naval Rafale can even be transferred to the Air force after the TEDBF is in production if they want to only operate one naval fighter in the future to simplify logistics.