This is exactly spot on and my go-to approach as well. I always thought myself of a huge fan of DDD, simply because I think it makes so much sense to discuss the architecture directly with the stakeholders until everyone technical and nontechnical alike really agrees about the existence, relation and constraints of entities: By using common, ubiquitous language and just giving the same things the same consistent, common-sense names while giving different things different names.

It's a godsend for the top-down inside-out approach of requirements engineering that I like and teach.

Then I met some people the actual local DDD meetup group and was shocked that that part basically made up effectively zero percent of their discussion and the rest was taken up by talk about adapters, hexagonal architecture and all kinds of artificial design patterns that cultivate complexity and self-importance. I've been careful to call myself a DDD advocate ever since.

IMHO DDD went through the same unfortunate descent that Agile did: An originally really great idea and common-sense approach that went on to get bastardized into a cargo cult by coaches who like to produce sheets for BS bingo.

Yep, exact same experience.

I also had the unfortunate experience of working with some die-hards who believe DDD dictates that "the code and only the code should reflect the business requirements 1:1", with emphasis on the "only". Which means that things that are often configurable in other systems are instead hardcoded and scattered in the codebase done by those. In early stage startups this is a death kneel.