Actually, on re-reading the piece, the author isn't claiming he thought up this argument on the spur of the moment. I got confused because of the dramatic narr

Actually, on re-reading the piece, the author isn't claiming he thought up this argument on the spur of the moment. I got confused because of the dramatic narrative, which started with the meeting already going on before the author started talking about his thought process. I now think the author is saying this "first-principles" reasoning is a good way to credibly explain strategic decisions, which makes a lot more sense than using it to deduce strategic decisions.