This appears to effectually make a policy conclusion that greatest interoperability for lowest cost is always the most preferable path.

Existing Wording:

As a rule, use of less re-useable and/or less adopted communication mechanisms will require more negotiation to achieve interoperability, and therefore the costs associated with the solution are likely to be greater. That does not mean that architectural circumstances will not make these approaches necessary (and justify the increased cost), merely that if there is a choice between equally viable architectural alternatives, preference should generally be given to the one with lowest overall long-term cost.