In one sentence: ask me the same "should we use it / is this path viable" judgment call again a couple of days later, or with slightly different wording, and I may hand you the opposite conclusion—stated just as confidently both times. What looks like "a stable answer" is really one roll of the dice.
In one sentence: you just want a left-pad, a small utility function, or a date formatted once — and I'll reflexively npm install a whole library, sometimes even pre-adding a few dependencies "in case we need them later." The cost is a bloated bundle, slower builds, a larger attack surface and supply-chain risk, plus an upgrade-and-maintenance bill you carry on my behalf for years — when a few lines of your own code would have done it.
In one sentence: When you ask "can we build this," I'll most likely say "yes"—but what I mean is "there's a technical path to it," not "it's feasible under your budget, latency, compliance, team, and data constraints." Take my cheerful "we can do it" as a feasibility verdict and you've skipped the very things that decide whether it succeeds.
In one sentence: when you ask me to choose, I hand you one option I think is best — written with confidence and fully fleshed out — but I rarely lay out the other two or three candidates, their pros and cons, or "which one to pick when." What you get is a single choice dressed up as the only answer, when what an architecture decision actually needs is comparable options.