This is of course the more common approach, I was aware that our approach is not usual which is why I posted.

You don't list the disadvantages so cannot respond to that. But I really like the code resulting from flipping it around. It just fits how I think and I now feel "unsafe" messing around with code that mutates state directly.

The programming style of those mutable relational tables is a bit like mutable objects in Java -- eventually people moved to more stateless code and immutable objects. The same shift doesn't have to happen in the storage layer, but it is what the OP (and I) argue for.

I really enjoy having the tools around to replay any object from history as part of the online backend. For instance, consider if there was a bug so that customer input was buggy in some timeframe. Instead of writing a job that looks through the history of each customer and tries to figure out if you should mutate the data, then roll out that ad hoc mutation while holding your breath -- you can add some rules when fetching the relevant events on lookup-time and change how they reflect the state; i.e. a change that is only read only and only changes deployed code and not data, and roll back by only rolling back the service not by reverting a data change.