"BRD" is not at all a recommended approach to editing, it really is more of a last resort. You're very much expected to propose non-trivial improvements to the article on the talk page before you make them, and then respond to any actionable feedback; at which point anyone who reverts you after the fact is acting against established consensus. Being "BOLD" is okay for simple copyedits but not for much else nowadays.

From the wikipedia policy page:

> Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting

It's bizarre that you think it "puts reverting at the center of the recommended approach to editing" when the policy specifically says it doesn't even encourage reverting.

Which "policy page" were you referring to? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guideli... doesn't mention reverting at all (rather surprisingly).

IME, the majority of edits on WP seem to be reverts. I don't see much evidence of reverting being discouraged.

That passage is from here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discus...

It's an "explanatory supplement" to the Consensus policy. The problem with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines is that arguably there are so many of them that you can almost always find one that says what you want it to say. :)

And if not, WP:IAR will do the trick. That, too, is policy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules