> I call BS on dogmatic rules like that. Good architecture is analysing the requirements at hand and explicitly articulating and weighting the trade-offs.

This is quite the straw-man argument. For example, the section [1] whose title you quoted explicitly calls out the need to perform an evaluation first:

> When functionality is required, existing IT assets in the organization must be evaluated and used first, unless they do not exist and/or are a significant mismatch to the required functionality.

The "book" is clearly a draft-quality rough collection of notes, many of which are not fleshed out extensively, but it's quite unfair to consider it as a set of "dogmatic rules".

[1] https://nocomplexity.com/documents/arplaybook/businessarchit...