The "what to do instead" section is basically DARPA's "Heilmeier Catechism," which is the framework they use to gauge high-risk high-reward ideas. It doesn't kill ideas, but it places the onus on the proposer to be clear-eyed and explicit about what they're putting forward:

What are you trying to do? Articulate your objectives using absolutely no jargon.

How is it done today, and what are the limits of current practice?

What is new in your approach and why do you think it will be successful?

Who cares? If you are successful, what difference will it make?

What are the risks?

How much will it cost?

How long will it take?

What are the mid-term and final “exams” to check for success?

https://www.darpa.mil/about/heilmeier-catechism

Heilmeier Catechism is really interesting, thanks for linking that. I like how the questions break down different major aspects. It treats risk as one of the dimensions of evaluation but not entire conversation. That's the shift I was trying to describe. Critique is valuable as part of a complete picture, not when it is the only lens.