Read other letters about this article
I don't really have an opinion, because I don't really know enough about the purpose of the superdelegates, the history of their invention, etc.
But, as I understand it, if their function is precisely to serve as some sort of filter, check or safeguard in the process, then yes, of course they should draw on their expertise (such as it is) to correct for anomalies, egregious lapses in voters' judgement, as they see it, etc.
All premised, of course, on the idea that this is their function.
Whether their "supervisory" function is ethical to begin with is another matter.