I read most of the paper. For the most part, it struck a nice tone as being mostly descriptive and not too promotional. However, the final paragraph in the conclusion section differs:

> "For those in other organizations who are advocating for the use of a particular practice that happens to be described in this paper, perhaps it will help to say “it’s good enough for Google”.

In my opinion, this style of writing doesn't fit nor belong.

I would leave that paragraph out. Instead, let's judge on the merits and applicability of an engineering practice based on thinking, reasoning, and experimentation.

That said, as I've read various comments about Google's processes, I'm struck by the cognitive dissonance. On one hand, I see bandwagoning; e.g. "monolithic source control is nuts; we don't do that; no one I know does that". There is also some appeal to authority; e.g. "well, Google is the best, they do X, so we should too." I'm glad to see different argumentation fallacies colliding here.