The problem with change frameworks

I recently wrote about this big feeling of relief and elation when coming across a meta-theory that delivers such a powerful perspective that it 'reorganizes' your current world-view of things into a much simpler and more elegant way? So it releases a lot of built up energy or effort that world-view was holding? For me, about 12 years ago, that was Ken Wilber's AQAL framework. It freed me up from reductionisms in my thinking and unreferenced data suddenly had a place to go.
In the last 5 or 6 years I have noted being very impatient or sometimes even rebuked around this framework, also about Scharmer's U-Theory and other change frameworks. Tonight, while listening a talk by Dave Snowden I realized what this impatience and resistance was: When you collect data and then organize it through a framework, this helps to see patterns like constraints, blind spots, resistances to change, attractors and detractors, and your knowledge and your next steps are being organized. NB: The data comes before the framework. When a framework becomes the lens you are seeing things through it becomes a categorization framework which "produces a very different psychology" (Snowden) It leads to all kinds of hidden biases; confirmation, developmental and otherwise. What's more, it becomes a tool of subtle and gross reductionism once more - all in the name of a cutting edge super tool (teal??). That is a fake. This is what has been triggering me as I saw the frameworks being applied as prescriptive categorization frameworks over and over again in the last years. I now have a name for it. 

Dave Snowden's Talk on Complexity and Cynefin