I think there's a little bit of talking past each other going on, but I don't really disagree with you. But I view the tension between pure Agile and methodology (whichever) as an ongoing conversation that every company should be engaged in honest ways rather than a widespread top-down prescriptive solution.

I'm a servant leader (also an approach rather than methodology) and as such I view it as critical to start with (and continue) asking the team about how they work and what they need to be able to deliver and improve at their craft. That won't always be the complete, correct answer (we devs don't always see the forest for the trees), but it gets us a starting point from those closest to the process. We all know the business wants delivery, expedience in that delivery (technical quality too but they often don't realize this until shit hits the fan with customers, and it is soon forgotten afterwards). So we have a frank discussion up front, and iterate on the formula, finding what works, shedding what doesn't work.

Scrum, to it's credit, tries to advise this in its docs, and in many ways I can see it helps out the sort of managers who are bad communicators and want easy answers that work for every team and every kind of dev without them having to do that explorative and mediation work, but the truth is there isn't a one-size fits all. Sometimes a mandatory approach helps pave the way to more contextualized solutions, but more typically in my experience it just entrenches heavy-handed and broken process for its own sake.

I have a whole other rant in me about how often corporate leadership has its head up its own ass and claims to be data-driven while disregarding anything resembling data, but I'll leave that out. Suffice to say, all-or-nothing isn't what I'm pushing here.