In my world, on my team - everything is a 3. and if its not a 3 lets figure out why. IE, lets have a fairly sized piece of work we scope for most tickets. If its bigger than that, lets discuss it, see if its worht breaking down (if its larger) and if not lets just agreee thats a larger piece than 3. that way we can just keep an eye on relative size of issues.
That's pretty close to what the article is describing, if I understand it right. They functionally define "tasks", the ones put in the queues they suggest measuring, as bits of work small enough that most of the uncertainty is gone. So until that's proven wrong (when reality smashes a task into a bunch more tasks), it's more-or-less equivalent to all your stories having the same number of story points.
My team doesnt really have story points. But we work kind of similar to you: is this too big? If it is, lets see if we can break it down to smaller tasks. I think it works much better than arguing over story points.
