ORMs are terrible in this sort of world since they tightly couple the application to the data. But if you will only ever have one application anyway the abstraction of a separate schema is pointless.
Why is this the case?
1. If you are doing anything interesting, people are going to ask questions about what you are doing, and the best way to answer those questions is going to be by querying your database.
2. One day you might want to rewrite some of your service/s, split them into microservice/s, etc. At that point, there will be a minimum of two services talking to your datastore: the legacy service and whatever you're replacing it with. I suspect any alternative to this arrangement will be an even worse idea, e.g. taking a deliberate outage to perform a likely-irreversible migration.
- The existence of tools that allow structured access to multiple APIs (GraphQL is a nice middle ground between "YOLO any queries you want" and "you only get row-by-row access exposed by the web APIs").
- The existence of data on multiple internal data stores. Analytics folks usually are not prepared to engage with the complexity of data being stored across handfuls or more of different stores with different schemas. The owner of the application knows how to join that stuff better than they do.
- Building intermediate/denormalized stores isn't frowned upon just because analytics shouldn't run ad hoc queries on the main production DBs. Expose change streams or bulk ("too much" data) endpoints and make it easy to load their results into a reporting system, which can be raw SQL. It's not redundant; if you don't do this, the following conversation starts to happen often: Q: "I'm running raw analytics queries on production and it's not quite working, can we just make $substantial_schema_change so my report works/is fast?" A: "No, we explicitly chose not to structure the DB/index/whatever like that because it seriously fucks up a real user access pattern."
They only address it in so far as they push it downstream to the analyst, who as you mentioned, "is likely not better versed in what means what than the developers who work on the application databases."
There's a reason why datalakes exist, and having used them at past N companies, I think this is why data engineering of the BI flavor becomes necessary at the point that reporting becomes critical. An API is strictly worse than a datalake, and it's not hard to set up and maintain the latter. API versioning and communication are for frontend integrations, paid partner integrations and potentially (although I'd probably lean more on gRPC and the ilk) microservice to microservice interactions. But, I like to avoid building unnecessary API surface when I can.
You should not do this. It removes almost all of the benefits of extracting things into a separate service (services should own their data and the only means of accessing it should be via their APIs). That's not utopian; that's one of the main reasons you do a service extraction in the first place.
Don't choose general data access patterns for the infrequent occurrence of cutover. Cutover is when you break a few rules and then immediately stop doing so. Build for everyday access patterns instead (which should be through the API of whatever owns the data--SQL is a powerful language and a really shitty API).