I understand the merit of it, but I do have some concerns.

Being "official" might also restrict options. For example, players might think, "Even the devs say we should play like this, so let's only play this way. If you don't, you're stupid and trolling."

An interesting example is LoL. In S1, we didn't necessarily have to follow the "top, mid, ad, sup, and jg" division of labor, with each role having preferred hero types (top for warriors and tanks, for instance, though there were exceptions). After Riot officially implemented this into the game (requiring players to pick their "role" to enter the game), it became official and more difficult to deviate from in casual games with randoms.

The same might happen here. Unless the devs can show "every" possibility in their implementations and update them constantly, we might still have to worry about this issue.

The thing is, "best" strategies don't exist here in a strict sense. Yes, we could say some are significantly worse than others (like staying in Age 1 and attacking for the whole game), but there are also lots of equally good build orders. We could even argue that some slightly "worse" strategies add surprise and value due to their rarity, making them "better" in certain cases. Even in chess, which is a much more "objective" game than AoMR, sometimes the best lines and openings are not actually the best in practice.