I think one of the key phrases is in 3.26 "Commanders use design to ensure they are solving the right problem. [ emphasis added ]". Now, part of the problem with this comes right afterwards:

When commanders use design, they closely examine the symptoms, the underlying tensions, and the root causes of conflict in the operational environment.
Who defines what are the "root causes"? There is an underlying assumption that the commanders will be able to identify them which, IMO, is all sorts of hubris.

From this perspective, they can identify the fundamental problem with greater clarity and consider more accurately how to solve it. Design is essential to ensuring commanders identify the right problem to solve.
In theory, this sounds wonderful, but what if the underlying problem is some ID10t error of a politician or a trans-national corporation with lots of "friends" in DC? Should this be understood as a doctrinal rationale for the assassination of home grown (i.e. US politicians)?

Okay, I'll admit that may appear to be a touch on the reductio ad absurdam side but, given the beliefs of many in the world, I don't think it is too far out. There is what I can only describe as a very dangerous lack of limits placed on the way this concept is expounded.