I absolutely don't agree. His team milked the membership's response to the vote on the 2nd reading and the best interpretation of Corbyn's behaviour is that he got out of the way. If he accepted that the interim leader and his fellow candidates acted in good faith he certainly didn't say it. After leaving Harman to the mob that formed after the vote I can't imagine how he would expect her or her allies to view him positively in the future. He could have got the pop for voting against the bill but made it clear that he didn't think abstention was tantamount to supporting the Tories. He patently didn't do that.
As to comparisons to 2010, I'd argue the situations were very different. In 2010 Labour were fighting for its reputation, in 2015 they were fighting for attention. Also, in 2010 they were fighting against accusations of overspending, the criticism that everyone always wants to believe of Labour so it always had the potential to be wildly damaging. In 2015 you're suggesting that they needed to take an immediate position to avoid being seen as too hard on welfare?
Corbyn's position on the welfare vote appealed his base and, it was hoped, disenfranchised voters. Harman was trying establish a dialogue with the people who had just voted Tory. Corbyn did the thing that wins leadership elections, he appealed to the base. So we had the strong rebuttal that the base wanted to hear and 2 years later he has a great relationship with the membership and no relationship with the voters, and the party looks set to do even worse.
Obviously this one event could have been balanced out at any point in the last two years so it's hard to argue that it had to be significant, but the fact that Corbyn won such attention for it, at the expense of his PLP colleagues, yet the one goal the PLP had from the vote - engagement outside the party - hasn't been achieved, does make it rather emblematic of how fucked we are.