Tom Sykes is not any more reliable than any other of the royal commentators.
Regarding his specific reasoning on this occasion:
︎Harry got a RMB review, not normal.
︎KC said he supports IG and that a lot of taxpayers' money has been spent.
︎KC's King's Speech on anti-Semitism echoed what Harry had said earlier. Then New Statesman ran an article about anti-Semitism, not normally Harry's remit, then after the Golders Green attack KC visits GG
As part of its terms of reference, RAVEC is required to 'agree a framework for protection and take decisions ... ; review the framework and decisions taken under it regularly'.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7b4e3be5274a319e77e667/7367-RAVEC-TOR.pdf
Harry, having stepped back from being a working royal and moved out of the country (so away from RAVEC's usual remit), had a bespoke arrangement. RAVEC was found not to have acted unlawfully in doing this.
People familiar with the subject have suggested that there would typically be a brief annual review, with a formal review every 5 years.
The only comments that KC3 appears to have made (according to a friend, so not on record, and not endorsed by BP in the report) are that Invictus is a worthy cause, he hopes the Games will be a success for Birmingham, and he's aware that a lot of taxpayers' money has been spent on it.
KC3 has long been a supporter of British Jews. He visited Heaton Park Synagogue in Manchester in October after the horrible attack there, and was very welcome. He has been a patron of World Jewish Relief for over a decade, is patron of Council of Christians and Jews, and became patron of Community Security Trust earlier this year.
I don't think what Harry does or doesn't say on any subject has any relevance to what the King does, least of all on a subject as important as this.
Regarding IPP, this keeps coming up.
There is no chance of RAVEC, the Home Office or anyone else giving Harry IPP status - it's not in their remit.
International protected person is defined in international law, in a UN Convention, later ratified by UK Act of Parliament (Internationally Protected Persons Act 1978).
Harry doesn't fit the criteria. The only time he would have done was if he was representing the monarch on an official overseas tour (or with him in his household on an official overseas tour).