The distinction he wishes to make is that whether this first uncaused cause is personal or impersonal. From the contingency argument alone I do find the implications of personhood, agency, transcendence, etc. to follow. However, if he wants to acknowledge that this first uncaused cause is impersonal then that’s the minimal criterion needed for an uncaused cause, which is just an uncaused cause. I don’t need to draw implications from the conclusion in order to keep the conclusion what it is—an uncaused cause.