To expose state. I haven't actually read the code, but since you asked a really good question, I thought I would answer it generically :-)
Extract method is probably one of the most abused refactoring patterns around. As you correctly point out, there is no benefit for extracting single use functions and then leaving the code like that. It's just trading one set of notation (function names) for another (comments), while at the same time allowing you to confusingly arrange the code out of execution order.
You want to extract functions in order to reason about execution. You do this by exposing state in the form of the return values from the functions you have created. Whether you write unit tests, or (in a language like Haskell) use it to enforce type contracts, the point is that you have a tool for detecting when the inputs and outputs aren't matching up. This allows you to much more quickly zero in on defects.
There are a couple of caveats with this. First, some people read code linearly no matter what they are doing. Especially programmers without much experience often play computer (with or without a debugger) instead of reasoning using larger abstractions. Quite frequently the benefit of factoring code is lost because of this. It's important to understand the techniques that your team uses before you stick the code in the proverbial food processor.
Secondly, the main benefit of this kind of access is when you are restructuring code. The idea is that (to paraphrase Micheal Feathers) you put some of the code in a kind of vice, while you move the other code around. By exposing state, you can detect when the code you put in the vice starts to slip around. Many, many, many teams do little or no refactoring/restructuring of code. Some teams even have rules for limiting edits, because they feel that this will reduce breakage. On such teams, the effort of exposing state will be worthless.