Well I've looked at those links.

The first one is largely concerned with diabetes or pre-diabetes. The sample size was very small. Studies aimed at ameliorating the health of sufferers from diabetes are probably the most useful aspect of all this. There was one study, significantly with a larger sample size (69), that found that resistant starch had no effect on the appetite or food intake of prediabetic people. It's in a link within a link within the link, a bit buried, as with the good that's oft interréd with the bones, to misquote the Bard... I'll say no more about that as I wouldn't want to be accused of confirmation bias...As for the rest of us...

The second one is a lengthy meta-analysis largely concerned with data collected from studies on rats. I gave up the will to live on this one after reading the first 19 of 32 pages. Which means I may have missed something, I suppose...

The last three links consist of two popular science reports which are, to be kind, watered down somewhat for mass consumption. The third is by far the most rigorous of any in these links. It's a meta-analysis of a number of studies from the last thirty years. Whilst the report is far from dismissive, the conclusion of the author kind of says it all:

The current meta-analysis indicated that RS intake can improve some inflammatory biomarkers. More research, with large sample sizes and accurate design is recommended.

It's impossible to draw sound conclusions from studies using short time periods and small sample sizes. They must be regarded as initial studies which may (or may not) indicate that more thorough, and far more expensive, research is required. I'm not being dismissive, and I acknowledge that the studies done so far may be significant for people with or at risk of diabetes. As for those of us not in that category, I can't see any more than just a passing interest being called for. I'm biased, of course, because I like my pasta to be al dente.