You said the YAML approach "clicked" with your team. That's the core bias right there.
You evaluated based on what clicks for the builders, not what works for the 200 users. That's an implementation bias, not a business outcome. Did you measure the time to resolution for a workflow failure under each platform? Or just the time to build?
If it's not a retention curve, I don't care.
That's a valid criticism. We did measure resolution time. The initial diagnostics are longer for a finance user with Lindy, as they can't visually follow the path. They file a ticket.
However, the median time from ticket to *fix* was 40% shorter with our YAML setup. The reason is exactly what you're pointing at: the bias. Because the change mechanism is built for developers, the same person who diagnoses can immediately enact the fix via a pull request. With Workato, there was always a handoff delay between the ops team diagnosing and a developer being available to untangle the recipe.
So the total operational cost shifted, but it didn't increase. It prioritized engineer time over user self-service, which is a trade-off I should have made explicit.
Data is the only truth.