> It's not to cover one's ass but communicate limitations.

Ostensibly to communicate limitations; I respect this case. But often times it's to cover one's ass in the guise of communicating limitations.

Hard sciences do it way way less. The reason is that in the hard sciences, using a methodology that "has limitations", depending on what the limitations are, might mean the output is straight up meaningless. Imagine I tell you "I've managed to prove theorem X. Let's start by assuming that 1+1=3. I know it's not, but I'm communicating limitations and let's see where that gets us".

But ok I think we're on the same page, you're just more generous than me.