[growthwtf]

I think this article misses the mark (sorry op). The author is misinterpreting what the purpose of those documents are. Those are planning documents intended to generate team alignment and shared context. You should co-author them with the important stakeholders and it's a form of thinking through the solution as a group. Of course they describe future state—and that's a good thing.

It sounds like the problem is that nobody in the org ever writes down what the system does in the real implementation, and so the RFC becomes the default? That does sound frustrating, but it's also not the problem/solution pairing that the article tries to tackle. Also—that is explicitly what generated docs solve.

Documents should be unix-y (do one thing well), is maybe how I would rephrase this. If they're overloaded, that is genuinely a bad thing, but RFCs do have a time and place!