“Just use weak everywhere” gives the author very little to answer.
Take a hypothetical class instance that stores a callback which strongly captures that same instance. Two more useful review sentences would be “Could this capture be weak, with the callback doing nothing if the instance has disappeared?” and “If this work must finish after the original owner disappears, which object should retain it until completion?”
The first proposes a non-owning relationship and names the consequence of absence. The second asks where continued ownership belongs. They lead to different designs, and the requirement can decide between them. Breaking a strong cycle alone does not settle the intended lifetime.
Respectful disagreement can still reject a proposed change. Swift's conduct guidance supports constructive criticism, and a precise criticism gives the author something concrete to defend or revise. Naming the relationship makes the disagreement answerable.