Thanks for clarifying.
I agree that was the intention, but that message was not consistently presented. There’s nothing wrong with a contrary opinion, even some healthy trolling — in fact that’s essential for this kind of healthy debate— but when that happens, it needs to be a much stronger argument.
Take the original Agile manifesto. A truly inspired proposition, which had a wide-reaching and long-lasting impact. I’ll bet that in the time after the creation of the manifesto, people were losing their minds! But the ultimate brilliance of the proposition won people over.
For context, I’m a lean practitioner. Low fidelity, high understanding is my motto. Less deliverables, less waste, less meetings, more doing, more putting the thing in front of people. But I know (and so, it seems do most the thousands of respondents both to the OP and my post) that ‘just do a design sprint’ is not enough in most situations.
To design professionals with experience, the value of good research is obvious, but as a junior, I might have read the OP and thought “oh so I can just do this instead?”. And it’s the instead that I’m pushing back against. Design sprints are not an instead, they’re an and also.