Excellent be sure to document the process.
The main issue is there is just not enough practical data as to what is a more advanced means of producing hyper active player control as compared to a more traditional means of control when co-op or network needs is also a need. The movement component (aka bounding box) has always been used since day one and over the years has become “trusted” if all you need is a predictable result so our coders would rather go with what works rather than experimenting with what could be a much better form of animation control that takes to being data driven as a duck to water.
The question though is Root Motion as a system something worth investing what amounts to R&D that may or may not produced the required result?
Personally this is time I’m willing to spend but our coders are not so to future proof the design we are authoring all of our animations using root motion but the coder put in a function to strip off the root transform data making them all in place bound to the movement component. This way if RM becomes the way to go then it’s a flip of a switch.
As a personal opinion State Machines must die and with RM and layer blending there is no need to use them but needs a lot more proof as to implementation and predictability.