I would argue the opposite: Consensus for Data is necessary for OLTP systems of records. Consensus for Metadata-only is acceptable for analytics and non-critical workloads.

>> CfM is better for most OLTP applications

The CfM ones on your list are not OLTP. I don't count Aurora and Neon in CfM as they use quorum to read and write data. Aurora has 4/6 write quorum and 3/6 read quorum.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/writeread-quorums-enhanced-raft-2pc-distributed-sql-franck-pachot-bmmte/

>> for most OLTP applications because it doesn’t

require storing as many copies of data

OLTP should not accept transaction loss. This necessitates a consensus for data. CfM relies on non-atomic replication and can end up with this:

https://dev.to/yugabyte/testing-patroni-strict-synchronous-mode-you-must-handle-invisible-commit-and-read-split-brain-5bgk

or this:

https://dev.to/yugabyte/dirty-reads-in-oracle-database-is-oracle-acid-across-failure-43o2