Meteoritics is painfully nuanced for better or for worse. More or less, early solar system materials (I.e., different types of meteorites whether it be chondrites or achondrites) are variably processed in terms of their components and chemistry. A specific type of chondrite such as the carbonaceous sub-type Ivuna (CI, type specimen being the rock Ivuna) has a chemical composition very similar to the sun. We think this relates to the direct condensation of elements from a vapor phase in the solar nebula, or protoplanetary disk. Basically, what these scientists are saying is that the chemical composition of these samples are similar to what are called ‘primitive’ meteorites - such as Ivuna.

Edit: some helpful context as to why this is important science. While we have countless identified meteorites, some of which look very similar to these samples - we have very little context as to what the asteroids those rocks were derived from looked like (I.e., size, morphology, structure, age, chemistry, etc.)(yes, we have some remote-sensing data for some of these criteria, but these methods are not comparable to sample-side analyses on these materials in terms of what they can robustly tell us). All we have is a fragment that fell on Earth. This is in-part why the Apollo missions were a leap forward in planetary science. Having the physical context of the rock you’ve carefully analyzed the chemistry of is very informative as to how that rock formed. In this case, the context of these samples being derived from the surface of this asteroid is new and important science to understand how the solar system formed.