I'm CQRS advocate. None of are weakening the CQRS. CQRS is in fact pretty damn lose.

"There is a single data model shared by both commands and queries." - Nothing wrong with that, especially in simple cases.

"Commands can sometimes return data" - Well commands can succeed or fail. Greg young himself admits commands are really synchronous, and you need to communicate that.

"and no eventual consistency at the aggregate level." - This is the recommended approach. Between aggregates and it becomes loser.

"Materialized views for each aggregate are kept in-memory at all times" - Thats some advanced CQRS usage there.