I never liked that rationale:
* The job almost certainly will change. Data lives a long time, usually much longer than the original application.
* It's likely to conflate marketing claims with actual fitness for a purpose. A special-purpose system with special-purpose marketing may sound great if the special case lines up with what you're doing. But that doesn't mean that it's actually a better fit for that special purpose. And, thanks to confirmation bias, people almost always think their situation does sound like the special purpose for which the system was built.
* A database system is a system, not a tool. A tool is used in a particular instance for a short period of time, the results are obvious, and it's easy to switch tools if one is not working out.
Of course, there are always valid reasons to choose the special-purpose system, and I'm not saying you shouldn't have used Couchbase. I just don't like the "right tool for the job" argument.
Another thing that you win with the document model is lots of primary key lookups, making it easy to model your data access around your hot path. http://blog.couchbase.com/performance-oriented-architecture
I just don't like the "right tool for the job" argument.
Then say the "right technology for the task" then.There is no ONE database that works perfectly in every situation.
Build for what you need now, and just make sure your "central repository of truth" isn't lossy. You can always replicate for specific use cases later.
Even in the short term, it might be much faster to develop against a good RDBMS than a nosql system. I think many developers are so focused on "abstracting away the data store" that they forget what a good RDBMS can do for them.
Mongo is a little different bc they actively position themselves as a MySQL replacement for your average Rails app.