@Bltizo
I'm applying basic logic; if a known liar says that the sky is blue, it's not logical to conclude that the sky is green as a consequence.
Minnie Chan's low credibility doesn't mean that whatever she says is false; for instance, we can't conclude there's no J-20 because she claims there's a J-20 due to the preponderance of evidence. That a claim is made by Minnie Chan means that it should be treated as neutral or slightly better than neutral, given her track record, and we look elsewhere for corroboration of her claims.
Besides, as I've stated before, the J-20 family claim isn't based on Minnie Chan but rather based on rumors from other sources as well as statements by people working in the Chinese MIC.
===
As for a strike J-20, the most important thing to understand and focus on is that a strike J-20 isn't necessarily a strike J-20, it's more an air-to-air platform that's more robust in some ways than the current J-20 (A2A missile payload) and less robust in other ways (likely agility and cost).
Considering this, we have to look at what actual opportunity cost a strike J-20 will incur on other PLA programs. For instance, the JH-XX seems much more of a strike-optimized aircraft, technically a fighter bomber, than the J-20. It could potentially prove a potent air-to-air platform given its stealth, its speed, and its payload. But the JH-XX is a fighter-bomber, i.e, it potentially has a poor optics situation for the PLAAF and can't be considered the lynchpin of the PLA's air defense. And a strike J-20 wouldn't necessarily cannibalize a JH-XX, since the JH-XX, by virtue of being a larger plane, would likely have a far superior payload; a strike J-20 might be able to carry a Kinzhal-class missile, but a JH-XX is good enough for at least a DF-21 ballistic missile and might be qualified to carry a DF-26 ballistic missile.
Another PLA program that a strike J-20 might infringe upon would be sixth-generation fighter program. But to provide air defense, a sixth-generation fighter would have to be actual, as opposed to something that's slated to be ready by 2030-2035. A vaporware 6th generation program can't provide for Chinese air defense needs between now and its scheduled readiness.
The actual opportunity cost of a strike J-20, and the program a strike J-20 is most likely to cannibalize, would be the J-20 itself. Simply, a strike J-20 would be either comparable, as good, or better than the J-20 in an air superiority role. The J-20 seems to be slated for series production in limited batches, with the current inventory of the J-20 being about 50 units. Perhaps a total of 100 J-20As will be built, with at least 100 J-20Bs coming into production. A strike J-20, by virtue of being about as capable as a J-20B, would eventually obsolete the J-20B and drive J-20 project development in another direction. The F-15 and Su-27 families are strong examples of this situation, where an air superiority fighter was developed into a strike fighter and further iterations never quite abandoned the strike fighter's capabilities. The F-15EX, albeit an air-to-air variant, is designed to leverage the F-15E's strike design to deliver an astonishing number of air-to-air missiles. The Su-35 is not an inferior striker to the Su-30.
And if you look at say the F-16 project, when the F-16 was modified into supporting the strike role, the strike F-16 was not significantly inferior to the F-16As in the air superiority role. The F-16C/Ds, compared to the F-16A/B, had a more powerful engine to compensate for increased weight, and it also had enhanced radar increasing its BVR effectiveness compared to the basic F-16A/B.
So when we think about a strike J-20, we shouldn't think about it in terms of a Su-34, where the aircraft is significantly modified to function as a light bomber, but rather in terms of an F/A-18E compared to an F-18, where the strike capability of the F-18 is significantly enhanced, but little or no air superiority capability is lost between the Hornet and Super Hornet. A strike J-20 can simply be thought of as a natural extension to the J-20's air superiority mission; it gives up some maneuverability and speed for an increased weapons load, but overall it's roughly the equal of a J-20A/B in the air superiority role at the very least.
===
You have to remember, the biggest enemy of a J-20A/B isn't the F-35, but rather the counterstealth radar the Americans have up in the E-2D and their latest AEGIS. The J-20A/B needs to be able to, the moment the counterstealth AEW&C spots it, launch an interceptor or anti-radiation missile at the emitter. The J-20A/B can't do this fully; it has a limited range PL-15 for the interception task when what it wants to do is to launch a PL-16/PL-XX. Likewise, if a J-20A/B is being painted by an Arleigh Burke with counterstealth radar, the J-20A/B can't shut down the Arleigh Burke with a YJ-12 or YJ-91 missile. A "strike" J-20 can, and that just tremendously improves its air-to-air combat capabilities.