There is no question that if we were on a dive and things went sideways, your odds would be better listening to JC than to me in finding your way out of the wreck or whatever. But, we're not on a dive. We have the luxury to discuss, debate and examine the reasoning. This is particularly true on a subject like this one, where plenty of very, very experienced tech instructors do not impose such a requirement. Asking "why?" and debating it is a healthy thing to do.
What I hope and suspect any of them would say - and what, without qualification, any good instructor would say -- is that they want you to be a THINKING DIVER. Tech training involves learning about decompression theory and dive planning, subjects that are constantly evolving, not just blindly following what your instructor tells you about which algorithm, which GF, etc. Perfectly appropriate to start off students "the instructor's way" but that doesn't mean you don't think about it and make informed decisions as you progress and as the science evolves.
You'll find many experienced divers, vastly experienced divers, and instructors that continue to dive based on what worked for them based on what they started doing 20 years ago, which is out of date and no longer considered best practice. I'm absolutely not suggesting JC is in that category - I don't know him - just generally noting that experience is not the only thing when it comes to dive planning.
If you lack the foundation to assess the arguments yourself, then you're probably right to copy what more experienced diver does, but the point of technical dive training - good training - is to give you the tools to figure some of that out for yourself.
Even before taking any of his classes, that’s exactly what he came off as thru conversations - after taking classes it’s confirmed.
He wants you to think, he challenges you and shows you many solutions to problems.
It may not be bow ties and tuxedos but it worked for me.