When I onboarded at Intel in 2005, they had a similar rule called "Disagree and commit." I've generally always followed the same rule, long after I left Intel.
But, to take it a step further: If someone wants to do something a certain way that I don't agree with, I give them my professional opinion, and then I tell them that it's their task, and overall I trust their hands-on opinion more than my hands-off opinion.
"Disagree and commit" is also an Amazon leadership principle and it's one of my favourite because it really help with internal discussion by acting as a wake up call for you or the other person.
Saying: "I understand that you disagree with my plan but for this one I am asking you to disagree and commit so we can move forward" is surprisingly effective when used from time to time.
I love this rule! I try to do the same thing. I look at it as an investment...long return. Arguing to win daily is a fools game. As you say, make your point and watch things unfold. Over the long run, if your guidance along the way would have have been correct, well...the arguments stop eventually. The downside is that everyone assumes you are always correct...which is bad. Which means, you need to frame your guidance with some form of caveats/probability.
We have that one at Amazon. It took me quite awhile to realize that it meant in the "two and done" sense used in the article, and not the "I will literally die on this hill" sense. Younger me burned a lot of political capital fighting tooth and nail to change the course of a machine which had its tracks laid out by management with motivations separate from my own.
But, to take it a step further: If someone wants to do something a certain way that I don't agree with, I give them my professional opinion, and then I tell them that it's their task, and overall I trust their hands-on opinion more than my hands-off opinion.