Philosophically, I agree 100%. But I do my data entry a little differently.
Multiple facts of the same type for the same person can create all sort of problems within RM itself and for data interchange with other systems. Therefore, I try to have only one fact of each type whenever possible. For things like marriages, it's not possible. But for births and deaths as an example, it's possible to have only one fact which represents the primary or most probable data, and to include conflicting evidence and a discussion thereof in the note for the fact. This approach may not feel very satisfying philosophically, but it solves all manner of practical problems.
I was afraid of that. I had thought about that possibility, then thought about all the extra work I would have to do! But if other systems also have trouble with it, then I may have to.
But it really goes against the grain of a pure data centric approach, as opposed to free form notes, with unlinkable data embedded. I'm fairly new at this (learning from all of you!), started small with an Ancestry tree and a RootsMagic tree, hoping to merge them into one sync'd tree. But the world of genealogy is a world of sidetracks, and I'm easily sidetracked. I discovered FamilySearch, WikiTree, DNA testing, FindAGrave, geni.com, etc etc, and each one is a time-consuming world by itself. I've been working lately in all of them, and seeing the differences in methodology and data handling. Differences in methodology are expected, it's product differentiation and competition, a nuisance but acceptable. But differences in data handling is a real problem, and it shouldn't be.
I've been thinking about the basics, and trying to determine what the data model should be, because if you determine the correct model and requirements, then everyone should be able to agree on the basics consistent with that model, and standardization becomes fairly straightforward. A tree is a collection of 1 or more persons. A person is a collection of 1 or more facts. A fact is associated with zero or more sources (should never be zero, there's always a source no matter how bad). A source is a collection of 1 or more facts. A relationship is just a fact, special only in that it is associated with 2 persons, not just 1. A fact has modifiers and attributes, like dates, places, and details (including stories and media). Facts and their modifiers also have attributes like levels of precision (in dates and places, time of day vs only the century, the actual building vs only the continent). They also have levels of certainty and confidence. But it all comes down to persons, facts, and sources - all linked data points. The rest is just input and output controls, templates, display and report formats, and security and privacy controls.
If I try to consolidate all into one fact, I point conflicting facts toward one fact, which seems wrong, breaks the model. If I move the conflicts and their discussion into a note, I can't readily break it out, access the differing facts as data points. If I have a birth fact associated with 2 census records, and another birth fact associated with 3 census records, then consolidating them means 2 census records now point to a birth fact in conflict with what they say. That's wrong to me. Even if it's fully discussed in a note, it's just not right from a data centric view. I do realize that from the human reader point of view, it looks completely fine. But the human reader often doesn't realize what the limitations are, doesn't see the report forms possible if each data fact was separately addressable.
I've really come to like WikiTree. I like the whole idea of one permanent tree community edited, I like the very nice and helpful community, I like the strong emphasis on sourcing everything, I like the exceptional way they deal with DNA tests (automatically propagating results, test kits, and haplogroups to all other applicable profiles), and I like the free-ness! (Except for the free-ness, geni.com is much the same.) But WikiTree has a huge flaw, in that once you've added the vitals, all of the rest goes in one often very nicely formatted but completely free form biography! There are often lots of stories, pictures, sources, and footnotes, but it's all one big single piece of data, essentially unbreakable, great to link to, and use as a source of info, but the data can only be printed out one way, the author's way. That's the extreme form of free form data handling, the road that free form notes start down when they combine multiple facts into one note. (sorry for so many words)