While I cannot guarantee perfect accuracy, I have a passing interest in these things and will try to help.
Starting at the oldest age for bone glyphs, at least 何 certainly existed. However while 何 is easy to see......
...... 冘 is far rarer and needs to look at more. I went through multiple resources and almost all had no results for 冘 as an oracle bone character, showing its rarity. I did find a few showing different oracle bone characters from your source (and two showing the same exact one). However every single one was still labeled as a 何 glyph even though it was being listed under 冘. so it is safe to say these glyphs are definitely still 何 and not related to 冘 as we know it-- which has no known entries before small seal script.
Now the only remaining question is why these 何 glyphs are being listed under another newer character, and is there actually a weird etymology connection or a weird etymology glitch? I'll admit this is where I may start to fall short since I am not an expert studying these things, but after checking the sources that I am aware of, here is what I found: 冘 is a 象形 picture based character depicting a man carrying a pole. Note that 何 is a picture of a man carrying a hoe on their shoulder, so similar but distinct in records. I also saw one source state that its original form was identical to 方, which in turn was a picture of a man carrying a yoke. However it did not elaborate properly on the etymology so may not be reliable. None of these elaborated on 冘's etymology properly, whether they listed glyphs or only newer characters. The fact that it is rare is probably significantly lowering the possible encounters to help with etymology.
I think it is safe to say that there are no oracle bone entries commonly and officially related to 冘, and those being listed under it are from unrelated glyphs with similar archaic etymology. I would not necessarily say your source is wrong though, as its possible there are theories out there that some instances of oracle bone glyphs represented 冘, and they are just not yet officially substantiated by enough evidence. This character is rather rare so its likely there just is not enough evidence to form any older etymology than small seal script on an official and common level. Officially and commonly though, all bone glyphs are unrelated(or unconfirmed) and this source is wrong in that sense. This is also why most resources will list zero oracle bone glyphs for this character at all.
P.S. While your source may be perfectly valid, I recommend trying to find sources that A.) list the actual bone glyphs, B.) have as many instances of the bone glyphs as possible, and C.) ideally tell you which oracle bone its from so you know its not being confused with something else or cut off (trying to look for a partial oracle bone glyph accurately is like trying to figure out 火火 from 灬灬 but much worse. If you haven't seen it before its almost futile, because even if you correctly pull it up you may dismiss the regular form as too different (been there done that _(:з」∠)_）
Bone glyphs are a whole different beast from anything large seal script and newer, characters turned side ways upside down or backwards can be the same, while characters with the slightest deviation in line placement can be confirmed different. There are thousands of oracle bone script characters still undefined, with only about a thousand positively identified. So if you are able to find as full sources as possible the better. The source linked above was recommend to me by a native who studies and reads oracle bone writing, so it is a good place to start as far as free online resources go :)