"Mr. Comey did not say exactly what he believed was incorrect about the article, which was based on information from four current and former American officials, all of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity because the information was classified. The original sources could not immediately be reached after Mr. Comey’s remarks, but in the months since the article was published, they have indicated that they believed the account was solid.
Continue reading the main story

One possible area of dispute is the description of the Russians involved. Some law enforcement officials took issue with the Times account in the days after it was published, saying that the intelligence was still murky, and that the Russians who were in contact with Mr. Trump’s advisers did not meet the F.B.I.’s black-and-white standard of who can be considered an “intelligence officer.”


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/08/us/politics/james-comey-new-york-times-article-russia.html

article's general/overall assertion {main point} that there was no evidence of collusion....

>snip<
The Feb. 14 story said that there was no evidence of collusion between the Trump advisers and Russia’s campaign to disrupt last year’s presidential election, a fact that officials have since said publicly. The F.B.I. declined to address Mr. Comey’s comments about the article.
>snip<

That seems more plausible, relative to Comey's choice of words, than the possibility that Comey was nitpicking the definitions /classification of 'Russian intelligence' or the accuracy of the specific methods of data acquisition cited.

Just a guess...FWIW