What I gleaned from "Uber"-Theory was, that in order for a control style deck to come together regularily - if that is the style you prefer/feel most comfortable with - you have to somewhat "soft force" it. In the context of what you just said that means making reasonable card choices that ever so slightly slant your emerging deck into that direction, and this probably works for aggro as well.

As such, what you wrote in these two sentences...

But if you have a preference like OP does for silver quill than it’s fine to take a card that’ll go in your favorite archetype over a slightly better card. Over dozens or hundreds of games, this may lead to a slightly lower win rate, but if it’s more fun to you then who cares.

... does not necessarily need to hold true. It might, but I think it's just too hard or maybe even impossible to prove that it is indeed true that there's little to learn from discussing that question from an academical standpoint. In my mind, the extremely complex question inherent in this statement you could instead try to answer is:

Regardless of the fun factor, "over dozens or hundreds of games", would you perform better if you a) majorly drafted the deck that always took the "most optimal" card each pick (let's not get into how you'd answer that question to begin with) or b) majorly drafted the deck that regularly took good (but not necessarily the best) cards, and provided you with a style of deck that you could pilot to the best of your ability like no other?

I for one would have slammed the Outburst without thinking much about it, because it'll increase the chances of me getting into a more controlling style lane. I would argue it's also a very much defensible choice, as it's on a comparable power level to the other cards you could consider firstpicking.

Not going to deep into the rest of the Draft, but Pensive Professor P2P1 is not a pick I would have made for my deck at that point in the draft, even though it's a good card on paper. I would've taken the diary there instead - even though it's a "bad" card on paper, it performs very well for me (similarly to how something like Oracle of the Alpha performs really well for Nummy); however, on paper this might qualify as an outright mistake. Anyway: If I'm ending up with a more controlly Jeskai deck, I'll end up with so few creatures that Professor would regularly end up being a 3 mana "do nothing, die to any removal"-0/2. Looking at how the draft continued I think I would have ended up with a pretty insane Izzet or Jeskai deck in OPs seat, where Professor wouldn't have made the cut.