> Good article breaking down the limitations of the science driven approach to productivity that Accelerate presents, and some of it’s harder to prove claims.

I find this sentence really interesting, because it highlights that we seemingly don't read the conclusions of the text the same way.

Do you mean "science driven" to mean "inspired by science"?

Otherwise, my understanding of the post was essentially that neither "Accelerate" nor the "State of DevOps report" deserve to be called "science driven", as they lack basic control mechanisms one would expect from scientific works. And, I have to say, with some pretty convincing arguments.

…or did you mean that really scientific works on the matter are inherently limited because of the necessary rigor (which was also a take-away of this text for me)?