not so much counterpoint as supplemental
"A single version of the truth for your business is a lofty yet essential goal to maximize business opportunity." This is the author's conclusion, with which it is difficult to disagree. Some of what precedes this is, however, at odds with history as I experienced it.
Many organizations started out with one single version of the truth in a centralized database. Then came the 1980s and relatively quickly many people had hitherto unheard of computing power on their respective desktops and the ignorance to equate capability with ability.
Much has been made of the "PC Revolution" and the empowerment of the end user whilst slathering pejoratives on centralized IT. Suffice it to say that organizational culture kept these two essential parts of the whole at loggerheads.
The move away from a single source of truth was due, not to caution, but to the perceived neglect from central IT. The end users needed to perform what-if analysis and central IT was not forthcoming with applications to do that. Enter Lotus 1-2-3, dBase, et. al. and what came to be known as "shadow IT."
There was no source code management, there was no test version of the "database"; these were not IT people and they knew not of these things. Ignorance can be remedied, but no one saw fit to do so.
And just why was central IT not providing a single application to access the single source of data? Management prioritized those requests far enough down the queue that they were never addressed.
Again, I don't disagree with the conclusion that "[...] it's understandable to have secondary data sprinkled everywhere. It's also a smart move to unify it into a single source of truth."
And again, I think some things are missing from the provided two routes to the truth: data administration and governance. It is essential that whomever is accessing the one true source of data understand what it is they are getting. If there's a "current status" column, as of when is it current? Also, GDPR, PII, HIPAA, SOX, et. al.