Would you have remembered to write this comment if the fields had never been added back?
In the case you describe, there are three possible outcomes, in broad categories:
1) The fields do turn out to be useful, in exactly the way you implemented them first.
2) The feature is implemented, but using a different set of fields or implementation.
3) The feature is not implemented.
Even if we assign equal probablility to all the options, creating them in the beginning still only results in a win in 1/3 of the time.
How much extra mental effort would have been spent making sure that all the other features implemented in the mean time work correctly with the metadata columns if they had not been removed?
Of course, you turned out to be correct in this case and that shows you certainly had excellent insight and understanding of the project, but understanding whether a decision was right or wrong, should be done based on information available at the time, not with full hindsight.
In the case you describe, there are three possible outcomes, in broad categories:
1) The fields do turn out to be useful, in exactly the way you implemented them first.
2) The feature is implemented, but using a different set of fields or implementation.
3) The feature is not implemented.
Even if we assign equal probablility to all the options, creating them in the beginning still only results in a win in 1/3 of the time.
How much extra mental effort would have been spent making sure that all the other features implemented in the mean time work correctly with the metadata columns if they had not been removed?
Of course, you turned out to be correct in this case and that shows you certainly had excellent insight and understanding of the project, but understanding whether a decision was right or wrong, should be done based on information available at the time, not with full hindsight.