1. Multiple Rates of Change: Why must changing one module in a monolith take longer than changing the same module in its own service? Perhaps a better use of time would be to improve CI+CD on the monolith.
2. Independent Life Cycles: Ditto. If the tests partition neatly across modules, why not just run the tests for those modules? If they don't, not running all your tests seems more likely to let bugs through, wasting the investment in writing said tests.
3. Independent Scalability: How bad is it to have a few more copies of the code for account administration module loaded even if it's not serving a lot of requests? The hot endpoints determine how many servers you need; the cold ones don't matter much. And load is stochastic: what is hot and what is cold will change over time and is not trivial to predict. If you separate the services, you have to over-provision every service to account for its variability individually, with no opportunity to take advantage of inversely correlated loads on different modules in the monolith.
4. Isolated Failure: Why not wrap the flaky external service in a library within the monolith? And if another persistence store is needed to cache, it is no harder to hook that up to a monolith.
5. Simplify Interactions: Ditto. The Façade pattern works just as well in a library.
6. Freedom to choose the right tech: This is true, but as they say having all these extra technologies comes with a lot of extra dev training, dev hiring and ops costs. Maybe it would have been better to use a 'second best' technology that the team already has rather than the best technology that it doesn't, once those costs are accounted for.
The cultural points are largely valid for large organisations, but I feel like it positions microservices as an antidote to waterfall methods and long release cycles, which I think could be more effectively addressed with agile practices and CI+CD. Splitting out a service might certainly be a good way for a large organisation to experiment with those practices, however.