Step 1 and 3 are, arguably, quite probable to happen in the future. I don't think you're appreciating just how many circular dependencies we have in the global supply chains. We're one big cataclysm or global war to reverting back to
pre-industrial times, and if that were to happen, we'd likely be stuck there for quite a long time. Consider the following observations:
A. For obvious reasons, we continuously improve tooling and processes. This creates circular dependencies that make our civilization non-restartable.
As a toy example, imagine we made tool A, which let us create tool B, which let us, among other things, upgrade A to A'. A' can still produce B, but can also produce upgraded B'. B' obviously lets us make A'', but also C', and A'' + C' let us make B''. Rinse, repeat for a hundred years. The result is that the whole industry relies on tools A'''''''''' and B''''''''''. The hobbyists still play with A and B, maybe even A' and B', but there's nothing between A' and A'''''''''' in actual use or production, nor anyone who remembers their design, because they've all been made obsolete long ago. If the calamity hits, and we can no longer make new A'''''''''' and B'''''''''', we don't get to downgrade a step or two - we go back all the way to A' and B'. And all the other tools and technologies that also relied on our advanced capacity - they all stop working and go "back to beginning" in lock step.
B. Making and operating tools involves ever increasing energy use.
C. We've used up all easily-available high-density energy sources long ago. Both our renewable tech and our fossil fuel mining and combustion processes are A''''''''''-level tech.
With that in mind, it's not that big of a stretch to write a plausible backstory for a culture as described in the article.