It's hard in practice to get engineering teams to stop fiddling with servers directly.
It should be logical that instances should be hands-off, and tasks should be automated through Run Commands or something such as Anisble. It really comes down to stubbornness.
Humans are such a pain
Yeah... One of my main customer's internal groups was flogging their favored CM system, recently. Touting, "but you can extend management from legacy systems to the newer, cloud-hosted (and it's cross-cloud!) systems" (while being able to compose a global dashboard would be a good justification, that group's never really been into hiring the kinds of people you need to have around to get worthwhile reports authored/updated). Ironically, the person that was flogging it was also joking, earlier, about "you could also use it to manage containers, but that would be horribad." All I could think was, "why do I need lifecycle-CM for my cloud-VMs: when it comes time to patch (etc.), we just nuke and re-deploy …and that's for the systems that we don't have running as part of auto-scaling groups (with scheduled scaling-actions configured for frequent replacement)".
It's not just Operations types that are hard to break of habits, the Security teams might be worse. A couple years ago, they insisted they needed interactive-shell access to run their tools. So, we arrange for that to be doable ...and then they got pissy that system-ids were constantly changing and their databases were filling up with systems that no longer existed. Note, this was the same team that insisted that our containers had to be "whole OS" types of containers, since their scanning tools didn't know how to work with minimized containers in a way that allowed them to check off all the same boxes they were used to checking off with "whole OS" VMs and legacy servers.
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
We strive for transparency and don't collect excess data.