There's a subtle but important thing to note here. My bet is management didn't hate that you did a POC. They hated that you DIDN'T also do a writeup.
It's not about this vs that. Meet the minimum requirements before you go doing extra.
The documents are hard specifically because not you have to consider alternatives, or the feasibility of executing. What security concerns did I cover? How much time do I need to spend convincing team y to add this feature?
The demo is always the easy 50%, and never the hard parts that cause you to spend two years building alignment and executing.
A demo is no substitute for a written proposal and vice versa. The first is empirical, the latter is analytical and deliberative. Each has its proper place. Really, the demo is a way to corroborate the proposal, so it's a question of how rigorous the proposal needs to be. Some minor tweak might only require a quick discussion while a deep change will require deeper consideration.
Management hated that, and to this day I don't get why. I recognize the need for things to be reviewed by others, and we all can lose scope of what's important sometimes. I'm no exception. However, for things that are purely technical/scientific arguments, what's gained by me having to use the Official Template (tm) to propose an idea, and spending days messing with words and bullet points, rather than a demo that you can see with your own eyes?
It also struck me as quite hypocritical. On the one hand, professing to have a "bias for action", then on the other hand harshing on people for preferring action over another TPS reports.
See also: CIA memo "How to Infiltrate an Organization and Make it Dysfunctional" grin