I was thinking a bit more about this today while driving (heavy steady rain is making my usual Sunday ride less attractive).
Equipment choices come from a variety of perspectives so the way we look at research sources will vary as well. No one can say right or wrong but understanding motivations behind choices helps.
To me there are four easily identifiable categories: The professional or sponsored rider, the rider who wants to impress others, the experimental rider and the practical rider.
The professional, team or sponsored rider doesn't need to really worry about cost or replacement of components, may have expedited delivery of replacements in case of failure, a competition motivation to push the envelope for performance and an underlying purpose of showcasing new products for sponsors in order to drive sales. All of that is not to say their choices are wrong but that there is a lot of stuff going on with them that a recreational rider does not experience.
The rider who wants to impress others may buy what the pros use (it's a big part of the sponsors motivation) in hopes of "recognition by association". There's not much to say about that other than this user probably doesn't have the support the pros do when a failure happens or the experience to know when to use or not use innovation.
The experimental rider may adopt less than proven innovation or even apply lateral thinking to flex technology from other genres but they are more committed to the experiment than the image. They probably plan for the higher possibility of failure. Scientists in a sense. Rarely do they exclaim their ideas are bullet proof ahead of time as they really don't know and probably don't want to look foolish if they fail.
I suspect that many recreational bike packers fall into the "proven reliable" "field repairable" and "simplicity over complexity" train of thinking. They have a goal and want to achieve it with the best chance of success. The acronym KISS (keep it simple stupid) applies unless there is a perceived benefit. The "stupid" is self directed to remind the user to not get distracted by new and novel shiny bits.
What moves this user out of simplicity into complexity is either a definite benefit and/or proven reliability for the risk of complexity. Brifters over bar end shifters could be looked at this way as, over multiple generations of development, they have become quite reliable and they do provide a benefit in shifting. The downside is still that you can't field repair a brifter but can with a bar end shifter. The fact that they now rarely fail negates that downside though for the most part. Etap or electronic shifting for off road use is probably closer to the "still proving" end of the spectrum.
So when we look at low spoke count we should ask some very basic questions: What type of user am I? What's my overall objective? Win a race, sell a product, show off, experiment, achieve a travel goal. What real benefit does this low spoke count offer towards that objective? Is it a proven technology in this application. Does it add complexity to the equation for no reason? What happens if it succeeds - what happens if it fails.
If we eliminate winning a race, looking cool or experimenting we are left with practicality. What does a low spoke count offer? minimal weight and aerodynamic gains (largely theoretical when viewed in the overall picture). That's it. What are the cons? Higher chance of failure, less chance of limping home on the remaining spokes, the possible need for tools and spare spokes as a result if going further afield.
Going from proven 32H to now more common 28H is one thing. That's a 4 spoke drop and now has some generations of demonstrated general reliability. Going from 32H to 20H off road is a 12 spoke drop and a huge percentage loss of rim suspension/support (depending on how you look at it). Considering that most people who understand bikes recognize the wheel set as one the most important components in terms of reliability that's really an experimental decision.
Thinking of what Tim said earlier in a post: If a person already has a lower spoke count wheel set and isn't doing isolated tours there really is no reason not to use them. They probably won't fail and if they do you deal with it then, like every other component. But... if someone is custom building a new wheel set and is purposely choosing a low spoke count maybe they should think about why? Even more so if the answer is that modern design has created very strong spokes when those same spokes can be used for the more reliable higher count wheel. That only increases the reliability of the wheel set which, from a practcal perspective is admirable, instead of pushing the envelope to create an expensive yet less reliable alternative.
Ps. You can probably tell it's still raining
