[zak_mc_kracken]

The Agile Manifesto is the opposite of tradeoffs.

"We value X over Y" is not a trade off, it's a dogmatic claim.

"We should do X in these conditions and Y otherwise" is a trade off.

For each of the items you list above, I can come up with a few scenarios where doing the opposite of what the Agile Manifesto says would be the better approach (and that's probably one of the main reasons why hardly anyone takes that Manifesto seriously these days).

[bunderbunder]

There's that bit at the bottom of the Agile Manifesto: "That is, while there is value in the items on the right, we value the items on the left more." I think the spirit of it is to try and discourage outright dogmatism. That said, I'm coming to think of the Agile Manifesto as a collection of four rather ugly false dichotomies. It's the assumption that those 4 pairs of things are somehow separable that's what's really dogmatic about the manifesto.

For example:

Processes and tools can often be one of the best ways to improve interactions among individuals. See Scrum, which is hardly a panacea but sometimes it works wonders.

For a large project, comprehensive documentation is essential to producing working software. Ideally the documentation should be so comprehensive that it pervades the very fabric of your application in the form of good factoring, command-query separation, etc.

Contract negotiation can be an important first step in customer collaboration. Everyone needs to know where everyone else's needs, boundaries and comfort zones are.

Without a clear plan, how can you be sure of the best way to respond to change? See: Duke Nukem Forever, WinFS, RIM.

[apetresc]

I think you might be confusing "tradeoff" with "compromise".

"I'm willing to give up some valuable-thing-Y in exchange for more X" is a textbook example of a tradeoff.

[rubiquity]

It is interpreted as a dogmatic claim but it wasn't intended to be one. After all, the very essence of the Agile Manifesto is to always be thinking.