This is ridiculous. I’ll tell you why. Here I quote:

“All parts in the assembled model must be made of paper. Each part must be a single, solid color. The parts must not use any printed textures or designs. The model must be represented as a simple polyhedron.”

Must. Must. Must. This is a game. Or an art school exercise.

Modeling is concerned only with attaining the necessary accuracy. Not conforming to a methodology.

What a bizarre objection.

> Modeling is concerned only with attaining the necessary accuracy. Not conforming to a methodology.

Maybe to you. More in general, your claim is simply wrong.

This is actually answered in TFA:

> Constraints: Let's set some constraints for how we're allowed to model our creation. These are self-imposed limitations that fit my preferred-style for model design:

> Why constraints? It may feel weird to impose constraints on an art. However, I find that these constraints encourage a better designed model that can be assembled easily and predictably, including by others.

It's ok if you disagree with this because you enjoy your model-making in a different way. The author explained why they chose this path, and it makes sense: a lot of art is about constrains ("don't do digital", "use only 2 colors", "origami without any cuts", etc).

Did you read the sentence above this quote?

> "These are self-imposed limitations that fit my preferred-style for model design"

If you have a different preferred style, then write your own article and how-to, stop complaining and touting nonsense yourself.

"These are self-imposed limitations that fit my preferred-style for model design... I find that these constraints encourage a better designed model that can be assembled easily and predictably, including by others."

Seems reasonable.