There are two subthreads about the structure of the plea deal, but they're both closely related; both are about the question of whether the plea stipulation drops the notion that Assange had a direct hand in the conspiracy that produced Chelsea Manning's document trove, rather than just being a passive receiver who published documents he had no real duty, as a non-American, to protect.

In both threads, the answer comes down to: the plea agreement says otherwise. Assange has stipulated to his culpability in the conspiracy --- the 793(g) charge you brought up. The plea agreement doesn't list the overt acts that substantiate the charge, and would make clearer the reasoning behind Assange's active participation. But that's because the plea agreement is a stipulation, for which the only evidence needed is that of agreement between prosecution and defense.

The superseding indictment is much more explicit. Had the case ever gone to trial, you'd have seen at its conclusion jury instructions that would have made clear the evidentiary threshold --- the overt acts, what acts qualify, etc --- to convict on the conspiracy.