"Minimum and yeet" works surprisingly well if you have unsolvable debates on customer value, options to yank the feature if it sucks, and generally competent engineers. If you are really good at yanking the feature when it sucks - you may even be able to get away with incompetent engineers. However if you repeat this cycle on the same code base 100x over, every feature gets harder. Eventually you hit a point where no one really knows how to do anything anymore as a feature that used to take 2 weeks now takes 8 months.
"Completion or bust" works really well when you can't take a feature back... ever. However the definition of completion tends to grow over time. I've seen launch checklists which amounted to 6 month projects on their own (for both good and bad reasons). Sometimes completion becomes an excuse for architectural astronauts to enforce a change resistant paradigm on the code, eliminating any gains from completionism. Other times, the engineers and managers become convinced that any change will take N months and start ignoring everything that doesn't look like it will provide N months of value.
In an ideal world, I'd love to see organizations better adapt their standards to the needs of individual teams or invest in tooling which makes it "cheap" to do the right thing. However this is not easy to pull off.