The force working against named tradeoffs is the illusion of correctness. If a decision can be framed as “right” or “wrong” rather than “this tradeoff vs that tradeoff,” then disagreement is resolvable by analysis rather than preference. This is comfortable but false. Most architectural decisions are not right or wrong — they are appropriate or inappropriate for a context. The context includes the team’s capabilities, the expected scale, the operational environment, and a dozen other factors that change over time.
There is also organisational pressure to appear decisive. Naming a tradeoff means acknowledging that the other option had merit. Leaders who are measured on certainty rather than quality of reasoning avoid named tradeoffs because named tradeoffs admit that the decision was not obvious. This is a cultural failure that produces brittle decisions: decisions that cannot be revisited because revisiting them requires admitting the tradeoff was wrong.