I'm a bit puzzled by the article. First off, I'm not sure whether they consider that eventual consistency is not consistency. Secondly, they quote a long exam

I'm a bit puzzled by the article. First off, I'm not sure whether they consider that eventual consistency is not consistency. Secondly, they quote a long example where business behaviour inherently results in inconsistent data. There is a significant difference between your system being robust enough to let inconsistent data exist, and to give the tools for business users to reconcile it, and a system that is not consistent iself, and lets the users deal with it. An illustration of this is text editing. If you simply share a text file with multiple people and let everyone edit, it'll be hard to avoid people overriding each other in a chaotic and destructive way. But if you use e.g. CRDTs, you give people the ability to each follow their train of thoughts, and to reconcile their versions later on. That example tends to show how valuable consistency is, and how important it is to build a system that lets users reconcile data if the business logic is not always consistent.