> Neutral changes aren’t costly on our users, so while we should be somewhat averse to wasting time and adding tech debt for neutral changes, it isn’t the end of the world.

While I think most of the points in the post are reasonable, I strongly disagree with the idea that neutral changes aren't costly. Some neutral changes are good because they are a part of a larger strategy or vision, but in my experience most neutral features are simply change for changes sake. Any reasonablely large company that ships all/most neutral tests is going to end up feeling like a bloated, unfocused mess.